A bill authorizing a gasoline tax for PA (which will reach 30 cents per gallon) to fund transportation infrastructure is awaiting Gov. Corbett's signature. The promise is that this money will finally make it possible to build the CSVThruway that has been talked about for over 40 years. Today's Daily Item has a full story on this, and the on-line version has the reactions of local business leaders:
http://www.dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1050748654/Business-Leaders-Bypass-benefits-outweigh-negatives
Building the Thruway is amazingly noncontroversial. Some people oppose it, but not a lot and not in any organized fashion (correct me if I'm wrong on that).
What might be controversial is the gasoline tax. I recall an ad from an outside group, I believe this was in 2000, that you might also remember. It had Keystone Cops running in circles and it was about how Al Gore had supported a federal tax on gasoline to pay for infrastructure. That tax was so controversial that it had to be repealed. That was a 5 cent per gallon tax.
PA's new tax will be 30 cents per gallon. Gov. Corbett, at the same time, is going to push for more sweetheart deals for natural gas (fracking) operations--so I predict we'll hear about how we should switch to natural gas for both home and car if want to save money. Still, most people at the lower end of the economic spectrum are not going to buy an electric hybrid or a natural gas powered vehicle, and will feel this new gasoline tax. If it turns out that the money never gets to the Thruway, we'll know that we have been the victims of a huge bait and switch. It's hard not to be skeptical given how many times we've had our hopes dashed on this one.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Friday, September 21, 2012
Matt Miller on the 47% who pay no income tax
There have been a lot of comments about Gov. Romney's comments at a fundraiser in Florida, but Matt Miller's comments seem to get to the heart of the matter about the 47% that don't pay INCOME taxes:
...those in the 47 percent who aren’t seniors or veterans are mostly poor workers whose payroll taxes, at 15.3 percent (since the employer side of the tax effectively comes out of workers’ wages), leaves them taxed at a higher rate than was Mitt Romney on his $20 million income last year...
As far as I've seen, Miller is also the only one who has noted Milton Friedman's hand in the creation of the policies that Romney was indirectly attacking.
If ANY assistance from government is defined as dependence, we can't have a meaningful policy debate. We all benefit somewhere, somehow, from government. But if the focus turns to how to allow those who are struggling to empower themselves, then we might get somewhere.
...those in the 47 percent who aren’t seniors or veterans are mostly poor workers whose payroll taxes, at 15.3 percent (since the employer side of the tax effectively comes out of workers’ wages), leaves them taxed at a higher rate than was Mitt Romney on his $20 million income last year...
As far as I've seen, Miller is also the only one who has noted Milton Friedman's hand in the creation of the policies that Romney was indirectly attacking.
If ANY assistance from government is defined as dependence, we can't have a meaningful policy debate. We all benefit somewhere, somehow, from government. But if the focus turns to how to allow those who are struggling to empower themselves, then we might get somewhere.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Voter ID update
Here's a Huffington Post article on the latest State Supreme Court ruling on the Voter ID law.
Long story short: the burden of proof has now shifted: the lower court must now determine that voters will not be disenfranchised by this law for this November's election in order to leave it in effect. The lower court ruling is due in early October.
Long story short: the burden of proof has now shifted: the lower court must now determine that voters will not be disenfranchised by this law for this November's election in order to leave it in effect. The lower court ruling is due in early October.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
A Note on Tax Policy
Under Romney, millionaires and billionaires would get a $250,000 tax cut, while families with kids making less than $40,000 a year would, on average, actually see their taxes go up.
--Jim Messina, Campaign Manager, Obama for America
I haven't fact-checked this claim from the Obama Campaign, but I have an easy time believing it is true. Many years ago Grover Norquist outlined a basic strategy for Republican politicians: keep the taxes on lower income people uncomfortably high so they will continue to support "tax relief" for high income earners. We have to break through that smokescreen, and the Occupy movement began to do it with a focus on the 99% and the 1%. If the question is, "Would you like to see lower taxes?" then the Republican frame will win out. If the question is,"Is it fair for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary?" the Democrats will have a fighting chance of at least allowing the tax rates for the wealthiest revert to their Clinton-era levels. (They might also point out that Mitt Romney, earning about $20 million per year, is paying a lower tax rate than lots of middle income people.)
--Jim Messina, Campaign Manager, Obama for America
I haven't fact-checked this claim from the Obama Campaign, but I have an easy time believing it is true. Many years ago Grover Norquist outlined a basic strategy for Republican politicians: keep the taxes on lower income people uncomfortably high so they will continue to support "tax relief" for high income earners. We have to break through that smokescreen, and the Occupy movement began to do it with a focus on the 99% and the 1%. If the question is, "Would you like to see lower taxes?" then the Republican frame will win out. If the question is,"Is it fair for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary?" the Democrats will have a fighting chance of at least allowing the tax rates for the wealthiest revert to their Clinton-era levels. (They might also point out that Mitt Romney, earning about $20 million per year, is paying a lower tax rate than lots of middle income people.)
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Lakoff on the Santorum Strategy
I think I finally understand what the Republicans are up to, thanks to George Lakoff. I was having a conversation with a politically minded friend recently and we agreed that, as a strategy for getting elected president, attacking contraception is not a winning strategy. But along comes Lakoff to explain that Republicans are probably not worried about this battle, they are focused on a long-term war. Think about how much free media Rush Limbaugh has had in the last two weeks. Now imagine that all that free media HELPS CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES AT EVERY LEVEL EXCEPT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE. And suppose that Mitt Romney's response is the one that conservatives generally had--right argument but he used the wrong language. It's a sobering thought. And think about all the coverage that other conservative "leaders" such as Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann etc. have received in the Republican primary. And how many Republican debates have been not on Fox but on CNN, where independents and conservative Democrats are more likely to tune in. It's why we'd better think about what Lakoff has to say and come up with some ways to respond. The first response would be to stop wishing for Rick Santorum to hang in the race into June to "weaken" Mitt Romney. Maybe a loss in Pennsylvania could help usher Rick Santorum off the stage--for good.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Super Tuesday and Beyond--some stuff to consider
The CSCC Blog has been pretty quiet lately in spite of all that's been going on, so here's some stuff to consider on Super Tuesday 2012.
If you are wondering about details and deadlines for the Pennsylvania primary (APRIL 24), a good local resource is the League of Women Voters:
http://palwv.org/lewisburg/
A couple big issues that deserve even more attention than they've been getting:
1. Development of the Marcellus Shale and the natural gas industry. The "Impact Fee" recently passed falls far short of what CSCC called for in its petition last year, especially in the very limited nature of the fee.
2. Campaign Finance, Citizens United, etc. It's clear that we will see unregulated money flooding onto the airwaves this election cycle through SuperPACs. Stephen Colbert has done a nice job of showing how absurd the systems is, but that's not going to change anything in the short term. One reason Mitt Romney continues to be seen as the strongest candidate for the Republicans in spite of his weaknesses as a candidate is the strength of the SuperPAC money supporting him.
Some suggested reading:
Walter Russell Mead argues that we need a new liberalism--the earlier versions having "died of their own success." (I think that's a nice way of saying that they were not ultimately sustainable.)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183
Mead also wrote a more accessible discussion of the same ideas--a blog version called "Can the L-word be saved?":
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/15/can-the-l-word-be-saved/
In a nutshell, Mead is arguing that we're at a moment when a new paradigm is looking like a possibility, since neither conservatism nor liberalism is able to deliver what Americans seem to want.
In Congressional news, political newcomer Phil Scollo has put together several members of the Chris Carney team to take on Tom Marino. Of course, he will be very much an underdog (assuming he wins the D primary) in a heavily R district, no name recognition, little money, and running against an incumbent, BUT . . . it is good to see the Dems contesting the election, it is possible that more momentum could swing toward the Democrats as election day approaches, and you never know what might happen. It will be interesting to see what positions Scollo takes--if he will be a Blue Dog centrist like Carney or something else.
If you are wondering about details and deadlines for the Pennsylvania primary (APRIL 24), a good local resource is the League of Women Voters:
http://palwv.org/lewisburg/
A couple big issues that deserve even more attention than they've been getting:
1. Development of the Marcellus Shale and the natural gas industry. The "Impact Fee" recently passed falls far short of what CSCC called for in its petition last year, especially in the very limited nature of the fee.
2. Campaign Finance, Citizens United, etc. It's clear that we will see unregulated money flooding onto the airwaves this election cycle through SuperPACs. Stephen Colbert has done a nice job of showing how absurd the systems is, but that's not going to change anything in the short term. One reason Mitt Romney continues to be seen as the strongest candidate for the Republicans in spite of his weaknesses as a candidate is the strength of the SuperPAC money supporting him.
Some suggested reading:
Walter Russell Mead argues that we need a new liberalism--the earlier versions having "died of their own success." (I think that's a nice way of saying that they were not ultimately sustainable.)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183
Mead also wrote a more accessible discussion of the same ideas--a blog version called "Can the L-word be saved?":
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/15/can-the-l-word-be-saved/
In a nutshell, Mead is arguing that we're at a moment when a new paradigm is looking like a possibility, since neither conservatism nor liberalism is able to deliver what Americans seem to want.
In Congressional news, political newcomer Phil Scollo has put together several members of the Chris Carney team to take on Tom Marino. Of course, he will be very much an underdog (assuming he wins the D primary) in a heavily R district, no name recognition, little money, and running against an incumbent, BUT . . . it is good to see the Dems contesting the election, it is possible that more momentum could swing toward the Democrats as election day approaches, and you never know what might happen. It will be interesting to see what positions Scollo takes--if he will be a Blue Dog centrist like Carney or something else.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Independet Voting
She was a very informed called. The emphasis on structural reform sounded smart and good. She said there is a PA chapter. I thought this kind of electoral reform is something CSCC can get behind. Maybe fold into a set of issues for the 2012 cycle about improving the workings of democracy. Also get after bad redistricting, camp finance, and so on.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
CSCC on WKOK "On the Mark"
This morning, I was invited to appear on the WKOK 1070AM talk show "On the Mark" on behalf of CSCC to talk about our group and the Redistricting event we are hosting this Thursday. (For more info on that, see our Events page here.) If you missed the show this morning but wanted to listen, the audio will be available for the next week at:
http://www.wkok.com/1070_WKOK/OTM.htm (Click Tuesday's "On the Mark")
After that, I have put a clip (just the CSCC portion of the show) in our archives here:
http://www.csccnow.org/audio/CSCC_On_WKOK_100411.mp3
The best part was that I had a chance to talk about CSCC, and also to share the recent quote from Elizabeth Warren (which I think is very relevant in today's climate) about why suggesting that restoring previous tax rates to wealthiest Americans isn't "class warfare" because those that succeed in the American system have used resources that we all pay for, and they have an obligation to see that the next person coming along has the same opportunities they did.
The worst part was that I completely forgot to mention the CSCC's webpage or email address. Oh well, maybe people will try to Google us and find us.
http://www.wkok.com/1070_WKOK/OTM.htm (Click Tuesday's "On the Mark")
After that, I have put a clip (just the CSCC portion of the show) in our archives here:
http://www.csccnow.org/audio/CSCC_On_WKOK_100411.mp3
The best part was that I had a chance to talk about CSCC, and also to share the recent quote from Elizabeth Warren (which I think is very relevant in today's climate) about why suggesting that restoring previous tax rates to wealthiest Americans isn't "class warfare" because those that succeed in the American system have used resources that we all pay for, and they have an obligation to see that the next person coming along has the same opportunities they did.
The worst part was that I completely forgot to mention the CSCC's webpage or email address. Oh well, maybe people will try to Google us and find us.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Rt. 15 Corridor Improvement Recap
Last night at the Union County Government Center, there was a 2nd public meeting to discuss plans for the "Rt. 15 Corridor Improvement Plan." For those of you who wanted to go but were not able to, I took some notes. Most importantly, remember this: none of this is a final plan! These are all preliminary recommendations at this point. If you have comments or feedback (in favor or opposed), they want to hear from you! Visit http://www.unioncountypa.org/residents/government/county/route15_corridor/
Bert Cassaboon, McCormack Taylor.
1. Scope: The 'corridor' being improved consists of the segment of U.S. 15 from just south of Beagle Club Rd/River Rd to just north of Wm. Penn Drive (a.k.a. the light at BZ Motors/Weis), to include both those intersections. "Corridor Planning" includes consideration of transportation issues, land use issues, and other integrated activities.
2. Feedback thus far. The most common themes they have received strong comments on thus far have been about: safety; bike/pedestrian access; the Buffalo Valley Rail Trail and how it will cross US-15; aesthetics; congestion, noise and quality-of-life. From the 'aesthetics' point of view, they have conducted structured focus groups where participants were shown photographs of roads or roadside businesses in other parts of the country and asked to rate what they liked vs. didn't like about various photos. This feedback has guided the planners' thinking on how to design aesthetically-pleasing features.
Rob Watts, McCormack Taylor.
Mr. Watts 'stepped through' different zones of the corridor to discuss the main improvements that were being recommended in the current plan:
1. Transition zones. The look and signage would be changed in multiple transition zones at the north and south ends of the corridor to cue highway drivers (particularly trucks) that they were entering a more suburban area and needed to reduce speed.
2. Median and Sidewalks. In general, the plan is to add a median strip ("refuge" for pedestrians) and sidewalks (separated from the roadway by a narrow strip of grass/trees) on either side of US-15 from at least Rt.45/Market St. up to Wm. Penn Drive. The addition of the median will eliminate most of the existing left-turn lanes at minor intersections, but their analysis suggests that this will not have a significant negative impact on access to businesses. Three major intersections (see below) will also be improved to allow U-turns.
3. At the intersection of Beagle Club Rd/River Rd, right turn lanes will be added and/or the east end of Beagle Club may be moved north to reduce accidents from people trying to drive straight across from Beagle Club to River Rd.
4. At the "Bucknell light" (intersection of Smoketown Rd/Moore Ave.), Smoketown Rd. will be moved north so that all 4 roads enter at a 90-degree angle, 4 wide crosswalks with pedestrian countdown signals will be added to make this more of a prominent "gateway" into Bucknell.
5. Just south of the Rt.45/Market St. intersection, the north end of Stein Lane will be moved south and a right-turn lane will be added to improve safety and reduce congestion from people currently veering right onto Stein at that intersection. Also, the crosswalks here will be improved (straightened, shortened, add pedestrian countdown timers).
6. At the intersection of St. Mary St., the east side of St. Mary St. will be moved south so that all 4 roads are at 90-degree angles, and the intersection will be improved for pedestrians (wider, straight crosswalks, timers).
7. At the intersections of 4th St. and 7th St., add left turn lanes on the southbound direction to reduce accidents but block left turns from the northbound direction to eliminate the "shared bidirectional left turn lanes" that are there now and often cause head-on collisions.
8. Improve the intersection at Wm. Penn Drive for pedestrians (wider, straighter crosswalks, timers).
9. Finally, note that the engineers have not recommended adding or subtracting any existing traffic signals. However, they do recommend replacing the current signals with a 'smarter' system that has been used in Carlisle and elsewhere that includes video cameras to adjust the timing of lights and allows the signals to transmit information to each other to improve the flow of traffic through the corridor. This improvement was touted as a worthwhile investment whether or not the Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway ever gets built.
The format of the meeting was a Powerpoint presentation narrated by 2 of the principal engineers from McCormack Taylor, followed by an "open mixer" session in another conference room where many of the maps, plans, and artist renderings of the possible improvements were on display. The speakers emphasized that we are currently in Month #8 of a 12-month planning process, which would then be followed by the "legwork" of zoning, seeking easements, actual engineering analysis, and other steps that have not been done yet. It was implied that the improvements would not be completed until at least 2013.
Here are my notes from the 2 engineers' presentations:Bert Cassaboon, McCormack Taylor.
1. Scope: The 'corridor' being improved consists of the segment of U.S. 15 from just south of Beagle Club Rd/River Rd to just north of Wm. Penn Drive (a.k.a. the light at BZ Motors/Weis), to include both those intersections. "Corridor Planning" includes consideration of transportation issues, land use issues, and other integrated activities.
2. Feedback thus far. The most common themes they have received strong comments on thus far have been about: safety; bike/pedestrian access; the Buffalo Valley Rail Trail and how it will cross US-15; aesthetics; congestion, noise and quality-of-life. From the 'aesthetics' point of view, they have conducted structured focus groups where participants were shown photographs of roads or roadside businesses in other parts of the country and asked to rate what they liked vs. didn't like about various photos. This feedback has guided the planners' thinking on how to design aesthetically-pleasing features.
Rob Watts, McCormack Taylor.
Mr. Watts 'stepped through' different zones of the corridor to discuss the main improvements that were being recommended in the current plan:
1. Transition zones. The look and signage would be changed in multiple transition zones at the north and south ends of the corridor to cue highway drivers (particularly trucks) that they were entering a more suburban area and needed to reduce speed.
2. Median and Sidewalks. In general, the plan is to add a median strip ("refuge" for pedestrians) and sidewalks (separated from the roadway by a narrow strip of grass/trees) on either side of US-15 from at least Rt.45/Market St. up to Wm. Penn Drive. The addition of the median will eliminate most of the existing left-turn lanes at minor intersections, but their analysis suggests that this will not have a significant negative impact on access to businesses. Three major intersections (see below) will also be improved to allow U-turns.
3. At the intersection of Beagle Club Rd/River Rd, right turn lanes will be added and/or the east end of Beagle Club may be moved north to reduce accidents from people trying to drive straight across from Beagle Club to River Rd.
4. At the "Bucknell light" (intersection of Smoketown Rd/Moore Ave.), Smoketown Rd. will be moved north so that all 4 roads enter at a 90-degree angle, 4 wide crosswalks with pedestrian countdown signals will be added to make this more of a prominent "gateway" into Bucknell.
5. Just south of the Rt.45/Market St. intersection, the north end of Stein Lane will be moved south and a right-turn lane will be added to improve safety and reduce congestion from people currently veering right onto Stein at that intersection. Also, the crosswalks here will be improved (straightened, shortened, add pedestrian countdown timers).
6. At the intersection of St. Mary St., the east side of St. Mary St. will be moved south so that all 4 roads are at 90-degree angles, and the intersection will be improved for pedestrians (wider, straight crosswalks, timers).
7. At the intersections of 4th St. and 7th St., add left turn lanes on the southbound direction to reduce accidents but block left turns from the northbound direction to eliminate the "shared bidirectional left turn lanes" that are there now and often cause head-on collisions.
8. Improve the intersection at Wm. Penn Drive for pedestrians (wider, straighter crosswalks, timers).
9. Finally, note that the engineers have not recommended adding or subtracting any existing traffic signals. However, they do recommend replacing the current signals with a 'smarter' system that has been used in Carlisle and elsewhere that includes video cameras to adjust the timing of lights and allows the signals to transmit information to each other to improve the flow of traffic through the corridor. This improvement was touted as a worthwhile investment whether or not the Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway ever gets built.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Random thoughts for September 2011
One of the first rules of blogging is "stick to one topic." When several weeks go by without an entry, it gets hard to live by that rule. So, let's take a chance and wander into a few different topics on my mind that might be on your mind too, either right now or in the near political future.
Most exciting moment of the political day: Elizabeth Warren's announcement that she's running for Senate in Massachusetts.
http://www.elizabethwarren.com/announcement?sc=nat_s_ad2_b&gclid=CJ75gKjCnasCFYbD7Qod7iitfQ
Am I with her? You bet. Why wouldn't we want a fighter like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate? Unlike some others we might name, she knows how to communicate with average people about difficult topics. It's not a matter of whether I'll contribute to her campaign, but how much. Think about it!
Best recent political reading (if you have a strong stomach): Confessions of a GOP Operative who Left the Cult (preserved on AlterNet). The question becomes Yes, I'm cynical, but am I cynical enough? (with apologies to David Foster Wallace). Mike Lofgren comes across as a Republican of the Eisenhower mold and suggests that Democrats should make Eisenhower's birthday a national holiday, to remind the voters how far from Eisenhower the Republicans have drifted. (I remember Susan Eisenhower, a granddaughter I believe, speaking at the Democratic Convention in 2008.) I'm not going to get an "I LIKED IKE" button, but I do think people are starting to notice the consistent craziness coming from the Republican ranks. Which brings me to commenting on the Republican debates:
Favorite Republican debate moment: It was really two moments: Jon Huntsman saying in the Reagan Library debate that it hurts their cause when candidates ignore facts and don't pay attention to science (he's not getting nominated, obviously). Then Rick Perry compared himself to Galileo (if I understood what he was saying), because Galileo was right when the Catholic Church insisted that he was wrong, just as he (Perry) is right in siding with those scientists who argue that there is no Global Warming/Climate Change against all of those people (scientists and others) who claim it exists. (Now, if Rick Santorum had just jumped in to defend the Catholic Church on this point, that would have been even better.) Governor Galileo then argued against doing anything about climate change because of what "some people" say because it would destroy the economy and cost jobs. No mention of what it might cost "if" say, that 90% chance the IPCC talks about turns out to be right! The moderator followed up by asking what scientists who dissent from the mainstream view he respects (on the assumption that if you stand against what trained scientists--perhaps 95%--of them accept, you must be able to point to other trained scientists who think they are wrong and have carefully reasoned arguments for why they are wrong). Surprise! He couldn't name any climate scientists at all, let alone some that agreed with him that we ought to do nothing until we are "certain." This was NOT as bad as Sarah Palin not being able to name a single newspaper while claiming she read "all of them" in the infamous Katie Couric interview, but it did make him look like he was in George Bush's league--not really concerning himself with what those eggheads think.
Local issues:Obviously, the biggest local story is the flooding associated with T.S. Lee and its effects. Thankfully, the forecast that the river would reach 30 feet at Lewisburg (and corresponding heights elsewhere on the West Branch) turned out to be wrong. I haven't heard an explanation for why the forecast was raised so abruptly (perhaps because of more rain anticipated?). That would be for the specialists to look into (perhaps using science). The actual crest of less than 27 feet was far less devastating, but still devastating enough for those who got water into their living quarters.
In my mind, the issue that needs attention is communication. I heard many many people say that they had no idea what the siren meant. Where are we supposed to get information when the sirens go off? Is it a storm? A nuclear disaster? A flood? Should we just guess? The school district pushes out phone calls to everyone in less than half an hour--perhaps the emergency system needs to look at ringing phones for people known to live in flood prone areas. Facebook also proved to be a method for fast communication during the flood, but not everyone is connected to that system.
If you weren't affected by the flood, consider giving some help to someone who could still use it. Many people are still dislocated from their homes, and many will not be able to return to them. Others could just use some help getting waterlogged carpets and other items out of their basements.
From what I hear, the opening of the Buffalo Valley Rail Trail is still on track to open in early November. It will be interesting to see how fast it becomes a popular attraction, as I believe it will. I know I'll be using it!
I just saw that the League of Women Voters isn't planning an open candidates forum for the fall--not enough contested elections. Think about that whenever you interact with our local officials. They get very little reward (of any kind) for the work they put in on our behalf. We should appreciate them and help them when we can.
What stories are you thinking about?
Most exciting moment of the political day: Elizabeth Warren's announcement that she's running for Senate in Massachusetts.
http://www.elizabethwarren.com/announcement?sc=nat_s_ad2_b&gclid=CJ75gKjCnasCFYbD7Qod7iitfQ
Am I with her? You bet. Why wouldn't we want a fighter like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate? Unlike some others we might name, she knows how to communicate with average people about difficult topics. It's not a matter of whether I'll contribute to her campaign, but how much. Think about it!
Best recent political reading (if you have a strong stomach): Confessions of a GOP Operative who Left the Cult (preserved on AlterNet). The question becomes Yes, I'm cynical, but am I cynical enough? (with apologies to David Foster Wallace). Mike Lofgren comes across as a Republican of the Eisenhower mold and suggests that Democrats should make Eisenhower's birthday a national holiday, to remind the voters how far from Eisenhower the Republicans have drifted. (I remember Susan Eisenhower, a granddaughter I believe, speaking at the Democratic Convention in 2008.) I'm not going to get an "I LIKED IKE" button, but I do think people are starting to notice the consistent craziness coming from the Republican ranks. Which brings me to commenting on the Republican debates:
Favorite Republican debate moment: It was really two moments: Jon Huntsman saying in the Reagan Library debate that it hurts their cause when candidates ignore facts and don't pay attention to science (he's not getting nominated, obviously). Then Rick Perry compared himself to Galileo (if I understood what he was saying), because Galileo was right when the Catholic Church insisted that he was wrong, just as he (Perry) is right in siding with those scientists who argue that there is no Global Warming/Climate Change against all of those people (scientists and others) who claim it exists. (Now, if Rick Santorum had just jumped in to defend the Catholic Church on this point, that would have been even better.) Governor Galileo then argued against doing anything about climate change because of what "some people" say because it would destroy the economy and cost jobs. No mention of what it might cost "if" say, that 90% chance the IPCC talks about turns out to be right! The moderator followed up by asking what scientists who dissent from the mainstream view he respects (on the assumption that if you stand against what trained scientists--perhaps 95%--of them accept, you must be able to point to other trained scientists who think they are wrong and have carefully reasoned arguments for why they are wrong). Surprise! He couldn't name any climate scientists at all, let alone some that agreed with him that we ought to do nothing until we are "certain." This was NOT as bad as Sarah Palin not being able to name a single newspaper while claiming she read "all of them" in the infamous Katie Couric interview, but it did make him look like he was in George Bush's league--not really concerning himself with what those eggheads think.
Local issues:Obviously, the biggest local story is the flooding associated with T.S. Lee and its effects. Thankfully, the forecast that the river would reach 30 feet at Lewisburg (and corresponding heights elsewhere on the West Branch) turned out to be wrong. I haven't heard an explanation for why the forecast was raised so abruptly (perhaps because of more rain anticipated?). That would be for the specialists to look into (perhaps using science). The actual crest of less than 27 feet was far less devastating, but still devastating enough for those who got water into their living quarters.
In my mind, the issue that needs attention is communication. I heard many many people say that they had no idea what the siren meant. Where are we supposed to get information when the sirens go off? Is it a storm? A nuclear disaster? A flood? Should we just guess? The school district pushes out phone calls to everyone in less than half an hour--perhaps the emergency system needs to look at ringing phones for people known to live in flood prone areas. Facebook also proved to be a method for fast communication during the flood, but not everyone is connected to that system.
If you weren't affected by the flood, consider giving some help to someone who could still use it. Many people are still dislocated from their homes, and many will not be able to return to them. Others could just use some help getting waterlogged carpets and other items out of their basements.
From what I hear, the opening of the Buffalo Valley Rail Trail is still on track to open in early November. It will be interesting to see how fast it becomes a popular attraction, as I believe it will. I know I'll be using it!
I just saw that the League of Women Voters isn't planning an open candidates forum for the fall--not enough contested elections. Think about that whenever you interact with our local officials. They get very little reward (of any kind) for the work they put in on our behalf. We should appreciate them and help them when we can.
What stories are you thinking about?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Bottom of List- Jove's Letter
Way to go Jove!
Bottom of list
Thank you for taking Congress to task over the “debt debate debacle” in your recent editorials, and particularly for “jeering” Rep. Tom Marino, who shares just as much responsibility for the fiasco as any of our lawmakers.
I hope that everyone noticed in Monday’s article that Mr. Marino’s spokesperson said he would first consult with “financial experts,” then “business leaders” and finally “district residents” before deciding how to vote.
This should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Marino’s priorities: He follows orders well, but we are not the ones giving the orders.
We are at the bottom of the list.
Jove Graham,
Lewisburg
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
What jsut happened- analysis of the debt ceiling vote
So, the whole deal was that Obama and the Senate Dems _had_ to compromise with Boehner and he was hemmed in by the "young turks" and other uber conservative members of the house? Right?
But the final debt bill passed with many of them voting against it anyway. Many dems voted for it, I guess, out of a fear of what happened in 2008 when the house rejected the TARP and the markets fell like 700 points in a day. They did not want to get painted as irresponsible.
This helpful tool shows that even if ALL the tea party endorsed reps voted for it, it still would not have passed.
The total R yes votes was 174. The Tea Party no votes is 34. 174+34=208. Not enough.
The bill could not have passed without house dems voting for it in large numbers. And they only did that to save the economy. Meanwhile, Obama, master negotiator, gave away almost everything in a fool's quest to get those very tea party votes that DID NOT MATTER.
So, a debt deal that reeks of Tea Party priorities was passed without their total support. But, really, the core of the debt deal is about the super-conservative, Norquistian mania to destroy government. Seems like that won more than any populist anger. And it did so by letting the Tea Party extremists drive the debate despite their tepid support for the final bill.
Obama should have been trying to negotiate with the non-Tea Party Republicans.
But the final debt bill passed with many of them voting against it anyway. Many dems voted for it, I guess, out of a fear of what happened in 2008 when the house rejected the TARP and the markets fell like 700 points in a day. They did not want to get painted as irresponsible.
This helpful tool shows that even if ALL the tea party endorsed reps voted for it, it still would not have passed.
The total R yes votes was 174. The Tea Party no votes is 34. 174+34=208. Not enough.
The bill could not have passed without house dems voting for it in large numbers. And they only did that to save the economy. Meanwhile, Obama, master negotiator, gave away almost everything in a fool's quest to get those very tea party votes that DID NOT MATTER.
So, a debt deal that reeks of Tea Party priorities was passed without their total support. But, really, the core of the debt deal is about the super-conservative, Norquistian mania to destroy government. Seems like that won more than any populist anger. And it did so by letting the Tea Party extremists drive the debate despite their tepid support for the final bill.
Obama should have been trying to negotiate with the non-Tea Party Republicans.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Pat Toomey on the Debt Ceiling
Like many other people today (I hope), I contacted Pat Toomey's office to basically tell him to stop messing around and raise the debt ceiling already (without trying to kill Social Security/Medicare in the process). Here is the fulltext of "his" response. I put "his" in quotes because I think it could have been generated by a Republican Party Automated Robot. The RepubliCan 2000, if you will. But at least he responded more quickly than Tom Marino.
Dear Mr. ____,
Dear Mr. ____,
Thank you for contacting me about the debt limit. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, the debt limit is an important issue before Congress right now. The current limit, which was last raised in February 2010, is $14.3 trillion. Although $14.3 trillion sounds like an awfully big figure to most Americans, we have reached the limit quickly due to the record high deficits that this Administration has been running.
While Congress debates an increase in the debt limit, I believe it is important to look at what got us here. Total federal spending has doubled since 2000. In addition, recent deficits have grossly exceeded those that we were running only a few years ago. In 2007, for instance, our deficit was only 1.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This year, it will be over 9 percent of GDP. The debt already has doubled in only four years, and it is expected to triple in 11 years. The consequences of such fiscal mismanagement will be devastating to our economy and job growth, not to mention to future generations who will be saddled with debt and a government they can no longer afford.
It is clear that Washington has a serious spending problem, and both sides of the aisle are not without blame. But that said, the American people want us to finally make the tough choices necessary to get our fiscal house in order, and the debt limit debate presents a good opportunity, if not the only opportunity this Congress, to do it. I therefore value your input on this important issue.
In my view, I recognize that the debt limit will ultimately need to be raised and I have supported legislation to do so. For instance, I have cosponsored the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which the House of Representatives passed with bipartisan support on July 19, 2011. This bill, as you may know, would raise the debt ceiling by the amount the President requested in exchange for putting our nation on a path to a balanced budget. Unfortunately, on July 22, 2011, the Senate voted to defeat a motion to proceed to the House-passed version of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act (H.R. 2560). As someone who voted in favor of H.R. 2560, I am disappointed that the Senate refused to further consider legislation that would both address the debt limit issue and put our nation on sound fiscal footing.
In addition, you may be interested to know that I have introduced legislation that would protect Social Security beneficiaries, active duty military, and the full faith and credit of the United States should the President and Congress fail to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner. It is my hope that this legislation is not necessary, but I also believe that Congress should not simply raise the debt ceiling without taking meaningful action on tackling the overspending here in Washington.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
WGRC Interview Wrap-Up
This morning, CSCC was pleased to be invited to appear on WGRC's "The Matter at Hand" radio talk show with host Larry Weidman. As chair of CSCC, I was a guest on the show along with a policy analyst from the conservative Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg. Audio of the show is available here, and I thought I would try and publish some of the information that CSCC prepared for the show but I didn't have time to cover.
Fact Check on Commonwealth Foundation Talking Points
Commonwealth Foundation: “This is a mobile industry that can pick up and leave.” This general argument—that higher taxes will drive companies away--sounds good at first glance, but it doesn’t actually make sense. The gas is physically located underneath the ground, and the gas companies want it. If they want our gas, they can’t go anywhere else. This is not a situation where a big store like Walmart is trying to decide whether to open a location here, or across the state border. Natural gas production is based on the physical location and size of reserves, and the price of gas which is set at a national market level. Furthermore, 29 other states have severance taxes, including our neighbor West Virginia (5.79%). In fact, West Virginia has always produced more gas than us, despite the fact they have a severance tax and we don’t. Of the five gas-producing states in the Rocky Mountains, Wyoming had the highest tax rate over the last 30 years, and it also saw the fastest growth in gas production. [Source: http://pennbpc.org/sites/pennbpc.org/files/Reality_Check_on_Emerging_Giant_Report_1.pdf]
Commonwealth Foundation: “…Pennsylvania’s high corporate tax rate….”: Over 70% of wells in PA are owned by companies registered as LLC’s which means they primarily pay the personal income tax rate of 3.07% not the corporate rate of 9.99%. In fact the 3 biggest companies, Atlas, Chesapeake and Range Resources are ALL LLC’s. In 2008, only 120 drilling companies paid corporate net income tax while 818 companies paid personal income tax. This is a statewide issue, not just for the gas industry: overall, only about 20% of corporate tax filers paid any corporate income tax in 2010. [Source: http://www.pennbpc.org/gas-drillers-escape-taxes]
Commonwealth Foundation: “the $1.1 Billion in taxes paid by the industry….”: First of all, this is a horribly-inflated number from Governor Corbett’s Department of Revenue. This is not an independently-calculated number. It includes every possible thing they could think of related to drilling, not just the taxes paid by those who would pay a severance tax. It includes the income taxes paid by their employees, it includes sales tax collected from their customers, and it includes taxes paid by pipeline operators and sand suppliers that would be paying taxes anyway even if the industry weren’t here. The point is that drillers themselves pay few taxes in PA. [Source: http://www.pennbpc.org/department-revenue-analysis-goes-well-beyond-taxes-paid-drillers]
Second of all, just because someone pays one tax doesn’t normally mean they get a free pass on other taxes. If I go buy a CD and pay sales tax on it, does that mean I get out of paying my gasoline taxes? So the fact that they pay “some” taxes isn’t an argument against a severance tax.
Finally, $1 billion sounds like a huge impressive number, sure. But let’s say, hypothetically, that I paid $1000 in state income tax last year. Can you tell me if I paid my fair share or not? No, you would have to know what my income was, what that’s a percentage of. So what is $1 billion compared to the total income of the industry over that time period? That number is unknown.
Commonwealth Foundation: “A severance tax hurts Pennsylvania citizens directly, because a lease splits tax obligations between drilling companies and landowners.” This is an intentionally vague statement that I believe is intended to scare people into thinking we want to “hurt” landowners by advocating for a severance tax. For better or worse, there is no “standard” lease in Pennsylvania. You cannot make any blanket statements about what a lease does or does not do: it depends completely on the lease agreement signed between a landowner and a gas company. At very worst, the landowner would see their royalty payments reduced by a proportionate share of the drilling tax. If the tax were 5%, then their royalties would be cut by 5%. If you are willing to sign a lease, with the expectation that you might get $1 million in royalty payments, are you not going to sign if you will only get $950,000? Most leases already often allow things like treatment and production costs and transportation costs to be deducted, all of which take a MUCH bigger bite out of royalty checks.
Commonwealth Foundation: “The state oversight for drilling is entirely funded through natural gas permits.” We can find no evidence to support the claim that it’s “entirely” funded. A natural gas well permit costs something like $3600, and that money goes toward the cost of inspections. However, the DEP is responsible for many other activities (air quality monitoring, erosion control, groundwater protection) that are not funded at all by drilling permits. Even simpler than that, though, there’s the fact that the number of inspectors aren’t keeping up with the number of wells being drilled. If you have more wells, and the same number of inspectors, that means you have less oversight.
Whenever anyone brings up the issue of regulation, those who oppose a severance tax act as if we are insulting the DEP or saying they are bad at their jobs. We are not saying that. They are doing their best, but to handle an industry that has grown exponentially, they need additional staff, they need additional support and resources and the severance tax would ensure they have those resources.
The Commonwealth Foundation also said, “Pennsylvania has very strict environmental laws.” That may be true, but laws do not magically enforce themselves. If we had the strictest criminal laws in PA, could we fire all of the police and judges? The departments that are supposed to be monitoring the industry and protecting us need resources to operate at increased capacity, and they are facing a larger workload than ever before, directly as a result of the natural gas industry. It is having an impact that permits and other current taxes do not “cover.”
Commonwealth Foundation: “The industry has paid $200 million for road repair... one landowner had his road repaired by the gas company on Easter morning.” First, $200 million is a large impressive number, but how does it compare to the actual cost of road repair? The fact is that local governments can require drillers to post bonds of up to $12,000 per road mile to help pay for damage. But this amount hasn’t been adjusted in 30 years, and township supervisors have been quoted as saying that it can cost over $100,000 per road mile to replace some of these roadways. Second of all, it is great to hear anecdotes about gas companies fixing particular roads, even “on Easter morning.” However, there are many other local officials who say the roads are being destroyed by the water truck trips and the bonds the drillers must take out are insufficient for real repair. They weren’t designed for such heavy traffic. The people living in these communities--and anyone living near a road that the trucks use to get in and out of Pennsylvania—have to deal with increased traffic congestion, and more traffic means more accidents, plain and simple. Also, the trucks don’t magically appear and disappear when they get to the end of those bonded roads near the well sites. We’ve got more heavy trucks on the state and interstate roads as well.
More importantly, isolated stories do not reassure us that that all gas companies are always going to do the right thing, or that they’ll be around to do the right thing when it counts, even if they wanted to. Compare our situation now with the coal industry. Coal mining activity peaked in Pennsylvania in 1918 and some communities are still paying the costs of companies that are long gone. Millions have been spent to address abandoned mine problems, and there are problems with polluted streams and unreclaimed mine land that would cost billions of dollars to fix. Having a severance tax is about supporting the long-term interests of Pennsylvania residents. The drillers’ goal is to quickly make as much money as possible. Fine, that is just the nature of their business. But as soon as the gas is gone, the drillers will be gone, too. Our business (citizens and lawmakers) should be to see that the people of Pennsylvania are not stuck with footing a huge bill as the industry heads out the exit doors.
Final thought:
The Corbett administration, some of our lawmakers, and the Commonwealth Foundation are out-of-step with both the people of Pennsylvania AND even with the industry itself. The Director of Corporate Communications for Chesapeake Energy Corporation, the largest drilling company in our state, has been quoted as saying, "We gladly pay a severance tax in every state where we’re active, except New York and Pennsylvania." Gladly. Why shouldn't they? They are used to paying this tax in 29 other states. A public poll released one week ago by Quinnipiac University found that 69% of Pennsylvania voters, including 69% of Republicans polled, support this tax. Our lawmakers need to step up, and institute a real severance tax (not the 1% tax in the current version of the Scarnati bill) that creates a fair playing field and pays for the impacts of this industry.
Fact Check on Commonwealth Foundation Talking Points
Commonwealth Foundation: “This is a mobile industry that can pick up and leave.” This general argument—that higher taxes will drive companies away--sounds good at first glance, but it doesn’t actually make sense. The gas is physically located underneath the ground, and the gas companies want it. If they want our gas, they can’t go anywhere else. This is not a situation where a big store like Walmart is trying to decide whether to open a location here, or across the state border. Natural gas production is based on the physical location and size of reserves, and the price of gas which is set at a national market level. Furthermore, 29 other states have severance taxes, including our neighbor West Virginia (5.79%). In fact, West Virginia has always produced more gas than us, despite the fact they have a severance tax and we don’t. Of the five gas-producing states in the Rocky Mountains, Wyoming had the highest tax rate over the last 30 years, and it also saw the fastest growth in gas production. [Source: http://pennbpc.org/sites/pennbpc.org/files/Reality_Check_on_Emerging_Giant_Report_1.pdf]
Commonwealth Foundation: “…Pennsylvania’s high corporate tax rate….”: Over 70% of wells in PA are owned by companies registered as LLC’s which means they primarily pay the personal income tax rate of 3.07% not the corporate rate of 9.99%. In fact the 3 biggest companies, Atlas, Chesapeake and Range Resources are ALL LLC’s. In 2008, only 120 drilling companies paid corporate net income tax while 818 companies paid personal income tax. This is a statewide issue, not just for the gas industry: overall, only about 20% of corporate tax filers paid any corporate income tax in 2010. [Source: http://www.pennbpc.org/gas-drillers-escape-taxes]
Commonwealth Foundation: “the $1.1 Billion in taxes paid by the industry….”: First of all, this is a horribly-inflated number from Governor Corbett’s Department of Revenue. This is not an independently-calculated number. It includes every possible thing they could think of related to drilling, not just the taxes paid by those who would pay a severance tax. It includes the income taxes paid by their employees, it includes sales tax collected from their customers, and it includes taxes paid by pipeline operators and sand suppliers that would be paying taxes anyway even if the industry weren’t here. The point is that drillers themselves pay few taxes in PA. [Source: http://www.pennbpc.org/department-revenue-analysis-goes-well-beyond-taxes-paid-drillers]
Second of all, just because someone pays one tax doesn’t normally mean they get a free pass on other taxes. If I go buy a CD and pay sales tax on it, does that mean I get out of paying my gasoline taxes? So the fact that they pay “some” taxes isn’t an argument against a severance tax.
Finally, $1 billion sounds like a huge impressive number, sure. But let’s say, hypothetically, that I paid $1000 in state income tax last year. Can you tell me if I paid my fair share or not? No, you would have to know what my income was, what that’s a percentage of. So what is $1 billion compared to the total income of the industry over that time period? That number is unknown.
Commonwealth Foundation: “A severance tax hurts Pennsylvania citizens directly, because a lease splits tax obligations between drilling companies and landowners.” This is an intentionally vague statement that I believe is intended to scare people into thinking we want to “hurt” landowners by advocating for a severance tax. For better or worse, there is no “standard” lease in Pennsylvania. You cannot make any blanket statements about what a lease does or does not do: it depends completely on the lease agreement signed between a landowner and a gas company. At very worst, the landowner would see their royalty payments reduced by a proportionate share of the drilling tax. If the tax were 5%, then their royalties would be cut by 5%. If you are willing to sign a lease, with the expectation that you might get $1 million in royalty payments, are you not going to sign if you will only get $950,000? Most leases already often allow things like treatment and production costs and transportation costs to be deducted, all of which take a MUCH bigger bite out of royalty checks.
Commonwealth Foundation: “The state oversight for drilling is entirely funded through natural gas permits.” We can find no evidence to support the claim that it’s “entirely” funded. A natural gas well permit costs something like $3600, and that money goes toward the cost of inspections. However, the DEP is responsible for many other activities (air quality monitoring, erosion control, groundwater protection) that are not funded at all by drilling permits. Even simpler than that, though, there’s the fact that the number of inspectors aren’t keeping up with the number of wells being drilled. If you have more wells, and the same number of inspectors, that means you have less oversight.
Whenever anyone brings up the issue of regulation, those who oppose a severance tax act as if we are insulting the DEP or saying they are bad at their jobs. We are not saying that. They are doing their best, but to handle an industry that has grown exponentially, they need additional staff, they need additional support and resources and the severance tax would ensure they have those resources.
The Commonwealth Foundation also said, “Pennsylvania has very strict environmental laws.” That may be true, but laws do not magically enforce themselves. If we had the strictest criminal laws in PA, could we fire all of the police and judges? The departments that are supposed to be monitoring the industry and protecting us need resources to operate at increased capacity, and they are facing a larger workload than ever before, directly as a result of the natural gas industry. It is having an impact that permits and other current taxes do not “cover.”
Commonwealth Foundation: “The industry has paid $200 million for road repair... one landowner had his road repaired by the gas company on Easter morning.” First, $200 million is a large impressive number, but how does it compare to the actual cost of road repair? The fact is that local governments can require drillers to post bonds of up to $12,000 per road mile to help pay for damage. But this amount hasn’t been adjusted in 30 years, and township supervisors have been quoted as saying that it can cost over $100,000 per road mile to replace some of these roadways. Second of all, it is great to hear anecdotes about gas companies fixing particular roads, even “on Easter morning.” However, there are many other local officials who say the roads are being destroyed by the water truck trips and the bonds the drillers must take out are insufficient for real repair. They weren’t designed for such heavy traffic. The people living in these communities--and anyone living near a road that the trucks use to get in and out of Pennsylvania—have to deal with increased traffic congestion, and more traffic means more accidents, plain and simple. Also, the trucks don’t magically appear and disappear when they get to the end of those bonded roads near the well sites. We’ve got more heavy trucks on the state and interstate roads as well.
More importantly, isolated stories do not reassure us that that all gas companies are always going to do the right thing, or that they’ll be around to do the right thing when it counts, even if they wanted to. Compare our situation now with the coal industry. Coal mining activity peaked in Pennsylvania in 1918 and some communities are still paying the costs of companies that are long gone. Millions have been spent to address abandoned mine problems, and there are problems with polluted streams and unreclaimed mine land that would cost billions of dollars to fix. Having a severance tax is about supporting the long-term interests of Pennsylvania residents. The drillers’ goal is to quickly make as much money as possible. Fine, that is just the nature of their business. But as soon as the gas is gone, the drillers will be gone, too. Our business (citizens and lawmakers) should be to see that the people of Pennsylvania are not stuck with footing a huge bill as the industry heads out the exit doors.
Final thought:
The Corbett administration, some of our lawmakers, and the Commonwealth Foundation are out-of-step with both the people of Pennsylvania AND even with the industry itself. The Director of Corporate Communications for Chesapeake Energy Corporation, the largest drilling company in our state, has been quoted as saying, "We gladly pay a severance tax in every state where we’re active, except New York and Pennsylvania." Gladly. Why shouldn't they? They are used to paying this tax in 29 other states. A public poll released one week ago by Quinnipiac University found that 69% of Pennsylvania voters, including 69% of Republicans polled, support this tax. Our lawmakers need to step up, and institute a real severance tax (not the 1% tax in the current version of the Scarnati bill) that creates a fair playing field and pays for the impacts of this industry.
Monday, June 20, 2011
WGRC Radio Interview Tomorrow
Also, we wanted to let everyone know that CSCC was invited to appear on WGRC's "The Matter at Hand" radio talk show tomorrow, June 21, at 11:00 a.m. I will be talking about the Tax Fracking Now! petition, and someone from the conservative Commonwealth Foundation will be appearing as well. We hope you can tune in (91.3FM in Lewisburg, or live streaming via the web at wgrc.com).
"TFN!" Petition: Final Tally & Delivery Report
714! In just two weeks, we collected a total of 714 signatures from Pennsylvania citizens (plus a few out-of-staters) demanding that our elected representatives enact a severance tax on the natural gas industry in PA. That includes approximately 500 signatures in our local state house district and state senate district.
We can't thank everyone enough--for signing, for volunteering your time, and for helping us to spread the word. We met a lot of new faces in downtown Lewisburg, people who "read about it in the paper and just had to make a special trip." This was truly a 'bipartisan' effort, too--the message we heard over and over was that, regardless of your age or political party, it just doesn't make any sense not to tax an industry that will have such a large impact on our state, our air & water, and our roads. We also heard a lot of outrage over the fact that the school budgets were being slashed while the state refuses to tax gas companies.
Here is just a sample of the comments made:
- "Long overdue!"
- "Let's keep & protect Pennsylvania as we know it."
- "I want my kids to be able to enjoy all of PA's natural resources."
- "I'm not in favor of fracking, but if it is going to be allowed, we should tax the companies who are profiting from it."
- "This is the very least you can do."
- "For once, can we engage in a little long-range thinking?"
PA Sen. Gene Yaw (R-23)
On Tuesday June 7, we met with Curtis Fay, legislative assistant to Senator Yaw, at the UC Government Center in Lewisburg for approximately 40 minutes. (The Daily Item was there and covered the story here.) The good news was that Sen. Yaw claims to be in favor of what he calls an "impact fee" of some sort and "not opposed" to a severance tax. The bad news is that he would like to see a bill (like one he introduced himself) where almost all of the revenue stays at the local government level which would not allow funds to be used for statewide environmental protection or infrastructure. He refers to Harrisburg as a "black hole" where money would disappear. We did our best to emphasize the point with Mr. Fay that we're not opposed to some of the money going to help local governments, but the money should be divided up with at least a third going towards environmental protection as many other states have done.
PA House Rep. Fred Keller (R-85)
On Friday June 10, we met with Rep. Keller himself in his Mifflinburg office for approximately 90 minutes. The good news (besides the fact that he gave us that much time) is that he said he "agrees with the general principle that those who profit from the common good owe it to compensate those who are hurt, damaged or abused in the process." The bad news is that he basically would not commit to anything beyond that. He said he didn't agree with a moratorium, that we needed better regulation enforcement, and that he would "consider all options before supporting anything."
Governor Tom Corbett (R)
On May 31, we called the governor's office to schedule an appointment, and were told that he only accepted written or faxed requests. On June 1, we faxed a meeting request. On Wednesday June 15, we emailed because we'd received no reply. On Thursday June 16, we received a message saying, "Your request has been forwarded to the Governor's Office of Scheduling and Advancement for their review and consideration. You should expect to receive a response from a staff member in that office in the near future." We will keep trying until we get through!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
UPDATE: "Tax Fracking Now" Petition Hits 464
464! In just over a week, 464 citizens have signed our petition to enact a "fracking" severance tax on the natural gas drilling companies. We know how urgent it is to let our representatives hear that message, so we will be collecting signatures for just one more weekend. Then, we'll deliver those signatures to our state legislators and the governor so that they hear the message loud and clear.
Or, we'll also be collecting signatures in person one more time, this Saturday in front of the Lewisburg Post Office from 10am-12pm. Last Saturday was a great success--we had several people who read about the petition in the paper and made a special trip just to sign! Special thanks also to wonderful volunteers who took sheets home to their businesses, or went door-to-door in their communities this week.
We can't thank everyone enough for the support--we're almost done and ready to make your voice heard!
If you haven't signed already, please do it now! Or if you know someone who needs to sign, please let them know! Our online petition is here:
Or, we'll also be collecting signatures in person one more time, this Saturday in front of the Lewisburg Post Office from 10am-12pm. Last Saturday was a great success--we had several people who read about the petition in the paper and made a special trip just to sign! Special thanks also to wonderful volunteers who took sheets home to their businesses, or went door-to-door in their communities this week.
We can't thank everyone enough for the support--we're almost done and ready to make your voice heard!
Monday, May 16, 2011
CSCC Announces "Tax Fracking Now!" Petition
CSCC needs your help.
Almost all gas-producing states impose a severance tax of some kind on natural gas drilling to help pay for oversight and cleanup, because once the resource is gone, it's gone--and hydrofracturing can leave behind serious damage just as the coal industry did. A "frack tax" will make sure that Pennsylvania has the resources to respond to these challenges.
So CSCC has created a petition in support of levying this tax on the gas drilling companies. This is not a typical online petition. We, the CSCC Steering Committee, will collect as many signatures as we can--both online and in-person in Lewisburg--and then personally deliver copies to State Rep. Keller, State Senator Yaw, and Governor Corbett in Harrisburg.
The petition says:
"We call on Pennsylvania's legislature and governor to enact a severance tax on gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale to help pay for effective regulatory oversight of hydrofracturing operations, proper cleanup of any environmental damage, and repair of roads and other infrastructure affected by drilling operations. This tax should be paid by the natural gas drilling companies, and portions of these funds must go to local and county governments and to environmental protection and remediation."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://signon.org/sign/tax-fracking-now-1?source=c.em.mt&r_by=159814
As of today, the PA Budget & Policy Center estimates that Pennsylvania has lost $186 million by not enacting a severance tax. Please help us spread the word! Feel free to forward, post or tweet this link to anyone in Pennsylvania who is concerned about the effects of drilling.
Almost all gas-producing states impose a severance tax of some kind on natural gas drilling to help pay for oversight and cleanup, because once the resource is gone, it's gone--and hydrofracturing can leave behind serious damage just as the coal industry did. A "frack tax" will make sure that Pennsylvania has the resources to respond to these challenges.
So CSCC has created a petition in support of levying this tax on the gas drilling companies. This is not a typical online petition. We, the CSCC Steering Committee, will collect as many signatures as we can--both online and in-person in Lewisburg--and then personally deliver copies to State Rep. Keller, State Senator Yaw, and Governor Corbett in Harrisburg.
The petition says:
"We call on Pennsylvania's legislature and governor to enact a severance tax on gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale to help pay for effective regulatory oversight of hydrofracturing operations, proper cleanup of any environmental damage, and repair of roads and other infrastructure affected by drilling operations. This tax should be paid by the natural gas drilling companies, and portions of these funds must go to local and county governments and to environmental protection and remediation."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://signon.org/sign/tax-fracking-now-1?source=c.em.mt&r_by=159814
As of today, the PA Budget & Policy Center estimates that Pennsylvania has lost $186 million by not enacting a severance tax. Please help us spread the word! Feel free to forward, post or tweet this link to anyone in Pennsylvania who is concerned about the effects of drilling.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tax on Natural Gas - Who Pays the Taxes?
Who pays the taxes on natural gas production in PA? Mostly, the answer seems to be: the landowners and not the gas companies. Unless something is done.
As reported in a recent CSCC email, several state legislators (mostly from the GOP) have touted the idea of taxing the gross value of gas at the wellhead "to pay for the economic impact of the shale drilling." Their proposal is an alternative suggestion to a severance tax that would be paid by the gas companies (as it is in 38 other states). Their idea has even been advertised in headlines such as "GOP legislators back bill to tax gas drilling." However, it is important for people to realize that this kind of tax would be on the landowners, not the gas companies. State Sen. Chuck McIlhenny (R-10) has said, "It comes out of the royalties."
Our own state senator (Gene Yaw) has discussed a similar tax. His argument is that gas companies would just pass on the cost of a severance tax by paying smaller royalties anyway, but the math just doesn't add up, does it? Let's just imagine that right now, companies were paying landowners a royalty equal to 20% of their (after-tax) profits. For every $1000 of profit, the gas companies would pay the landowner $200. Now what would happen if we instituted a 10% severance tax? (The current State House proposal is actually more like 7.3%.) Gas companies would pay $100 to the state and... $180 to the landowners. So yes, the landowner has gotten 18% of (pre-tax) profits instead of 20%, and lost $20. But the state now has $100, and the gas company has paid $280 instead of $200. They can't possibly "pass on the [full] cost of a severance tax to the landowner" so that argument just doesn't make sense. Does it make sense to anyone else?
What about corporate income taxes? The PA Budget and Policy Center (PBPC) has published an excellent summary titled, "Fact Check on Marcellus Shale and Severance Taxes." It points out that over 70% of wells are owned by companies that incorporate as partnerships or limited liability companies (LLCs), so they pay the 3.07% personal income tax rate on profits, rather than the 9.99% corporate net income tax rate. Most other states impose both corporate taxes and severance taxes.
What about property taxes? The same article by the PBPC says that "companies don’t pay property taxes on gas reserves." I asked Michael Wood, Research Director of the PBPC for more information about this. He writes:
Property taxes for surface properties are paid by the owner. So if a farmer leases land to a driller, the surface area is taxed, and paid for by the farmer. If a drilling company owns a building, they pay the property taxes on the building and the land it sits on.
When you get to the gas reserves, it is a different story. These haven't been taxable since 2002, but when they were, the tax was paid by the drilling companies. The property taxes on reserves are based on the production that has come out of the reserve over the past 5 or so years...depends on how the "assessment" is done. So, if there were a property tax on reserves in PA (which only requires a law from the Legislature authorizing such taxation), the drillers would pay it.
If the lease with the landowner allows the driller to deduct certain costs (transportation of the gas to market, processing to get the gas in sellable condition, and taxes), a portion of the tax would be "passed on" to the landowners in the form of lower royalty payments. That entirely depends on how the leases are drawn up. Drillers like to include those clauses in their leases, as it cuts their royalty payments. We don't have a good figure on what percentage of leases in effect have such provisions, but it is likely most of them.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Why Republicans in the House are vulnerable in 2012
Republican support in the House for the Ryan plan, which basically ends the current Medicare plan, is a huge gamble. Rep. Marino made some inroads in the last election by pointing out that Rep. Carney had supported a five hundred million dollar "cut" in Medicare. (Actually, it was a planned reduction in the future GROWTH of Medicare spending--a distinction even Ronald Reagan understood when he talked about budgets.) Now the House Republicans, with only Ron Paul (!) and a handful of others as exceptions, have voted for the Ryan plan (perhaps assuming that no one will ever look to see what's actually in the plan, since it is so unlikely to become law). Something tells me that we will be hearing a lot more about Medicare before November 2012.
To read more:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/15/6479275-the-gops-big-gamble
To read more:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/15/6479275-the-gops-big-gamble
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
