Government Accountability

Livable Communities Act of 2009

hmoroz — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:02:56 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act of 2009

hmoroz — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:00:26 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act of 2009

hmoroz — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:52:31 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:03:53 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Estimated percentage of those eligible to vote who do not have official state identification, according to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform: 10

Percentage of persons aged 65 and older in Wisconsin who do not have a driver’s license or photo ID: 23

Proportion of African Americans in Louisiana who lack government-sanctioned photo identification, as compared to the state’s white residents: 4 to 5

Percentage of black males aged 18 to 24 with a driver’s license in Wisconsin: 22

Number of states that do not currently require all voters to show photo identification when voting whose laws would be preempted by the Federal Election Integrity Act: 47

Number of instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in a survey of over 9 million votes cast in 2002 and 2004 in Ohio: 4

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Opposes. Public policy has the potential to make a profound difference in the lives of low-income citizens aspiring to the middle class. Lacking the resources of the wealthy and powerful, voting is one of the few ways the aspiring middle class can hold their government accountable. Yet the burdensome requirements of the Federal Election Integrity Act threaten to disenfranchise these very citizens. The Act’s photo identification requirement would not only impose significant costs on the millions of individuals who would need to obtain new documentation to acquire photo IDs, but would disproportionately affect the low income, people of color, the elderly, and the homeless who more frequently lack driver’s licenses and state identification cards. In fact, the Brennan Center for Justice calls the photo identification requirement a modern-day poll tax because of the costs and resulting disenfranchisement associated with obtaining the photo identification.

Furthermore, the type of voter fraud that the Federal Election Integrity Act purports to prevent is exceedingly rare. The very few instances of individuals misrepresenting themselves at the polls – one survey found that this occurred just four times out of over 9 million votes cast – do not come close to justifying the disenfranchisement of the numerous, and already vulnerable, individuals who do not have official photo identification.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Voter ID,” from the Brennan Center for Justice

ACLU Letter to the House of Representatives Urging Opposition to the Federal Election Integrity Act

“Requirements for Voter Identification,” from the National Conference of State Legislatures

Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:46:17 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Percentage of African Americans registered in Mississippi in 1964, before passage of the VRA: 10

Percentage of African Americans registered in Mississippi in 1968, after passage of the VRA: 60

Approximate number of African Americans in public office in 1964: 300

Minimum number of African American elected officials in 2006: 9,100

Number of states that currently contain jurisdictions subject to federal review of changes to voting rules under the VRA: 16

Number of local jurisdictions across 31 states that are covered by the language access provisions of the Voting Rights Act: 466

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. The ability to vote without fear of discrimination and intimidation in all elections, from the local school board to mayor to state assembly, is a fundamental component of a middle-class standard of living necessary for holding public officials accountable. Protecting the votes of every aspiring middle-class and middle-class citizen ensures that their voices are heard on the issues that matter most to them. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important civil rights acts and has been critical to ensuring that minorities achieve full enfranchisement and are represented by elected officials who will consider their issues, voice their concerns, and protect their interests. With passage of the Act, registration among African Americans jumped from 10 percent in 1964 to 60 percent in 1968 in Mississippi and from 24 percent to 57 percent in Alabama. The number of African Americans in public office has increased almost 3000 percent since the passage of the VRA. The number of Latino elected officials has increased from 1,200 in 1974 to 6,000 today.

But the Voting Rights Act has by no means solved the problem of electoral discrimination and intimidation for good. The provisions of the Act renewed by this legislation are essential to maintaining and improving access to the polls for all Americans. These provisions put the onus of protecting ordinary Americans at the polls on the federal government, rather than on individuals, who would otherwise be forced to pursue expensive lawsuits just to prove they have been discriminated against. Indeed, since the last reauthorization of the VRA in 1982, there have been more than 1,000 objections to changes to election rules considered to be discriminatory. The American Civil Liberties Union has compiled significant evidence that discrimination in elections is a present threat. The VRA’s protections against discriminatory electoral rules and its provision of election observers is a strong deterrent to discrimination and intimidation. Language assistance for citizens with limited English proficiency ensures that all Americans can understand often complex election rules and ballot initiatives, while allowing plaintiffs to recover expert fees in civil rights cases keeps the courts open to any voter who has been discriminated against.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws,” from the United States Department of Justice

“Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 2006,” from the American Civil Liberties Union

“Voting Rights Act,” from FairVote

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Conference Report

hmoroz — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:06:44 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Unemployment rate in early 2010, if current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 9.2%

Reduction in unemployment rate in 2010 if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is enacted, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers, respectively: 1.9%, 2.1%, 1.8%

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on extended unemployment insurance benefits, in dollars: 1.63

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on accelerated depreciation, which provides businesses a tax break for new investment, in dollars: 0.25

Percentage of spending and tax cuts that will take effect by the end of 2010, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 74%

Percentage reduction in aid to states made by the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act compared to the House version: 32%

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports.Economic conditions are bleak. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the economy continues on its current course, both the length and depth of the current downturn will be the worst since the Great Depression. For middle-class Americans, this means job and wage cuts, loss of health insurance, and, simply, a daily struggle to keep up with everyday costs like mortgage payments and college tuition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if current economic conditions persist the unemployment rate could reach as high as 9.2% by 2010. With 46 million Americans already uninsured, the Kaiser Family Foundation reckons that if unemployment averages just 7% in 2009 (the current rate is 7.2%), the number of uninsured will increase by 2.6 million with an additional 2.4 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP. Indeed, state governments are struggling to provide the increased services needed to keep the swelling ranks of unemployed, uninsured individuals from falling out of the middle class. But the current economic climate has left states with decreased revenue from income, sales, and property taxes: 46 states face budget shortfalls with combined budget gaps of $350 billion through 2011. To confront these gaping budget holes, more than 20 states have implemented or are considering cuts to health insurance programs; the same is true of K-12 and early education programs and of funds for public colleges and universities.

Beyond the decidedly dire short-term outlook, economic improvement is probably quite far off. Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, has testified that “economic recovery is likely to be slow and protracted.” Thus, programs that address longer-term concerns – investment in infrastructure and green technology are two primary examples – are as important as an immediate, stimulative jolt to the economy.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ties together measures designed to assist middle-class households struggling to make ends meet, provisions that will provide an immediate economic stimulus, and investment that can help set the stage for an economy built on energy efficiency and durable infrastructure. Economists generally agree that the legislation will save around 3 or 4 million jobs by 2010, while increasing economic output. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers all project that the legislation will reduce the unemployment rate by around 2%. Extended unemployment insurance will allow 6.7 million people to collect benefits. Importantly, aid to state governments for Medicaid and education programs would shore up budget gaps and help prevent cuts to vital services.

While assisting those most at need during the economic downturn, extended unemployment insurance and state fiscal assistance also generate the most “bang for their buck” in terms of stimulus because they funnel money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it. Extended unemployment insurance generates an estimated $1.63 in economic activity for each dollar spent; aid to state governments generates $1.38. In contrast, though they act more quickly than spending measures, tax cuts generate less stimulus. The Making Work Pay, Child, and Earned Income tax credits will help keep more than 2.3 million Americans out of poverty and the American Opportunity credit will make 3.8 million more students eligible for a higher education tax break. These are important measures that will assist aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. But the expansions are temporary and tax cuts, even when refundable and directed at the low-income individuals most likely to spend them, are less effective stimulus measures. Worst of all, though, are tax cuts for businesses like accelerated depreciation and carryback loss provisions that have little economic benefit.

Despite concern that the spending included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be delayed, perhaps a valid concern due to the legislation’s size and complexity, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 74% of spending would occur between 2009 and 2010. Indeed, funds for investment in infrastructure and energy efficiency, though perhaps more complicated to spend, are a critical step in longer term economic recovery. Beyond its stimulative value – infrastructure spending’s “bang for the buck” is $1.59 – the United States desperately needs new infrastructure to compete in the global economy. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending is now necessary. The funding for infrastructure projects included in the legislation is a first step in addressing this deficiency and funds devoted to high-speed rail are particularly welcome. Similarly, spending on a modernized electricity grid, retrofitted low-income housing, and weatherized homes creates the framework for a future economy less reliant on fossil fuels and, indeed, based on green technology.

Limitations on executive compensation and bonuses are a first step in establishing the accountability that has been missing from the financial bailout. Still, the bill does not set forth a comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis that includes a moratorium on foreclosures, a mechanism to require modification of mortgages, and a change to the bankruptcy code to permit modification of mortgages on primary residences. Funds for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program are a necessary, but insufficient, step in mitigating the widespread negative effects that foreclosures can have on entire neighborhoods and communities.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Recovery.gov, the official website of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

“Recession and Recovery,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“Impact of Economic Turmoil on Health Coverage and State Medicaid Programs,” from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Senate Version

hmoroz — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:24:04 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Unemployment rate in early 2010, if current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 9.2%

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on extended unemployment insurance benefits, in dollars: 1.63

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on accelerated depreciation, which provides businesses a tax break for new investment, in dollars: 0.25

Percentage reduction in aid to states made by the Senate version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 50.1%

Percentage reduction in Head Start and Early Head Start funds made by the Senate version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 50%

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Economic conditions are bleak. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the economy continues on its current course, both the length and depth of the current downturn will be the worst since the Great Depression. For middle-class Americans, this means job and wage cuts, loss of health insurance, and, simply, a daily struggle to keep up with everyday costs like mortgage payments and college tuition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if current economic conditions persist the unemployment rate could reach as high as 9.2% by 2010. With 46 million Americans already uninsured, the Kaiser Family Foundation reckons that if unemployment averages just 7% in 2009 (the current rate is 7.2%), the number of uninsured will increase by 2.6 million with an additional 2.4 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP. Indeed, state governments are struggling to provide the increased services needed to keep the swelling ranks of unemployed, uninsured individuals from falling out of the middle class. But the current economic climate has left states with decreased revenue from income, sales, and property taxes: 45 states face budget shortfalls with combined budget gaps of $350 billion through 2011. To confront these gaping budget holes, more than 20 states have implemented or are considering cuts to health insurance programs; the same is true of K-12 and early education programs and of funds for public colleges and universities.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ties together measures designed to assist middle-class households struggling to make ends meet, provisions that will provide an immediate economic stimulus, and investment that can help set the stage for an economy built on energy efficiency and durable infrastructure. Economists generally agree that the legislation will save around 3 or 4 million jobs by 2010, while increasing economic output. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office , Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers all project that the legislation will reduce the unemployment rate by around 2%. Extended unemployment insurance will allow 6.7 million people to collect benefits. Importantly, aid to state governments for Medicaid and education programs would shore up budget gaps and help prevent cuts to vital services.

While assisting those most at need during the economic downturn, extended unemployment insurance and state fiscal assistance also generate the most “bang for their buck” in terms of stimulus because they funnel money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it. Extended unemployment insurance generates an estimated $1.63 in economic activity for each dollar spent; aid to state governments generates $1.38. In contrast, though they act more quickly than spending measures, tax cuts generate less stimulus. The Making Work Pay, Child, and Earned Income tax credits will help keep more than 2.1 million Americans out of poverty and the American Opportunity credit will make 3.8 million more students eligible for a higher education tax break. These are important measures that will assist aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. But the expansions are temporary and tax cuts, even when refundable and directed at the low-income individuals most likely to spend them, are less effective stimulus measures. Worst of all, though, are tax cuts for businesses like accelerated depreciation and carryback loss provisions that have little economic benefit.

Despite concern that the spending included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be delayed, perhaps a valid concern due to the legislation’s size and complexity, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 78% of spending would occur between 2009 and 2010. Indeed, funds for investment in infrastructure and energy efficiency, though perhaps more complicated to spend, are a critical step in longer term economic recovery. Beyond its stimulative value – infrastructure spending’s “bang for the buck” is $1.59 – the United States desperately needs new infrastructure to compete in the global economy. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending is now necessary. The funding for infrastructure projects included in the legislation is a first step in addressing this deficiency. Similarly, spending on a modernized electricity grid, retrofitted low-income housing, and weatherized homes creates the framework for a future economy less reliant on fossil fuels and, indeed, based on green technology.

Requirements for application of TARP funds to foreclosure prevention and for limitations on executive compensation and bonuses are first steps in establishing the accountability that has been missing from the financial bailout. Still, the bill does not set forth a comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis that includes a moratorium on foreclosures, a mechanism to require modification of mortgages, and a change to the bankruptcy code to permit modification of mortgages on primary residences.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Recession and Recovery,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“The State of the Economy and Issues in Developing an Effective Policy Response,” Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf before the House Committee on the Budget

“Impact of Economic Turmoil on Health Coverage and State Medicaid Programs,” from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - House Version

hmoroz — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:59:07 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Unemployment rate in early 2010, if current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 9.2%

Number of individuals that expanded health insurance benefits included in the legislation will keep from losing health insurance: 8.5 million

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on extended unemployment insurance benefits, in dollars: 1.63

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on accelerated depreciation, which provides businesses a tax break for new investment, in dollars: 0.25

Number of dollars spent on highways for every four dollars spent on transit: 10

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Economic conditions are bleak. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the economy continues on its current course, both the length and depth of the current downturn will be the worst since the Great Depression. For middle-class Americans, this means job and wage cuts, loss of health insurance, and, simply, a daily struggle to keep up with everyday costs like mortgage payments and college tuition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if current economic conditions persist the unemployment rate could reach as high as 9.2% by 2010. With 46 million Americans already uninsured, the Kaiser Family Foundation reckons that if unemployment averages just 7% in 2009 (the current rate is 7.2%), the number of uninsured will increase by 2.6 million with an additional 2.4 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP. Indeed, state governments are struggling to provide the increased services needed to keep the swelling ranks of unemployed, uninsured individuals from falling out of the middle class. But the current economic climate has left states with decreased revenue from income, sales, and property taxes: 45 states face budget shortfalls with combined budget gaps of $350 billion through 2011. To confront these gaping budget holes, more than 20 states have implemented or are considering cuts to health insurance programs; the same is true of K-12 and early education programs and of funds for public colleges and universities.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ties together measures designed to assist middle-class households struggling to make ends meet, provisions that will provide an immediate economic stimulus, and investment that can help set the stage for an economy built on energy efficiency and durable infrastructure. Economists generally agree that the legislation will save around 3 or 4 million jobs by 2010, while increasing economic output. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers all project that the legislation will reduce the unemployment rate by around 2%. Extended unemployment insurance will allow 6.7 million people to collect benefits. Expanded COBRA and Medicaid insurance programs will keep 8.5 million individuals from losing insurance. Importantly, aid to state governments for Medicaid and education programs would shore up budget gaps and help prevent cuts to vital services.

While assisting those most at need during the economic downturn, extended unemployment insurance and state fiscal assistance also generate the most “bang for their buck" in terms of stimulus because they funnel money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it. Extended unemployment insurance generates an estimated $1.63 in economic activity for each dollar spent; aid to state governments generates $1.38. In contrast, though they act more quickly than spending measures, tax cuts generate less stimulus. The Making Work Pay, Child, and Earned Income tax credits will help keep more than 2.5 million Americans out of poverty and the American Opportunity credit will make 3.8 million more students eligible for a higher education tax break. These are important measures that will assist aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. But the expansions are temporary and tax cuts, even when refundable and directed at the low-income individuals most likely to spend them, are less effective stimulus measures. Worst of all, though, are tax cuts for businesses like accelerated depreciation and carryback loss provisions that have little economic benefit.

Despite concern that the spending included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be delayed, perhaps a valid concern due to the legislation’s size and complexity, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 85% of the spending will occur between 2009 and 2011. Indeed, funds for investment in infrastructure and energy efficiency, though perhaps more complicated to spend, are a critical step in longer term economic recovery. Beyond its stimulative value – infrastructure spending’s “bang for the buck” is $1.59 – the United States desperately needs new infrastructure to compete in the global economy. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending is now necessary. The $160 billion for infrastructure projects included in the legislation is a first step in addressing this deficiency. Similarly, spending on a modernized electricity grid, retrofitted low-income housing, and weatherized homes creates the framework for a future economy less reliant on fossil fuels and, indeed, based on green technology.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Recession and Recovery,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“The State of the Economy and Issues in Developing an Effective Policy Response,” Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf before the House Committee on the Budget

“Impact of Economic Turmoil on Health Coverage and State Medicaid Programs,” from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured

A Joint Resolution Relating to the Disapproval of Obligations under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

hmoroz — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:14:38 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Amount allocated by the Treasury Department under the initial TARP tranche: $354 billion

Percentage of that original amount allocated for foreclosure mitigation efforts: 0

Number of foreclosures Credit Suisse projected in April of 2008 would occur over the next five years: 6.5 million

Number of foreclosures Credit Suisse projected in December of 2008 would occur over the next five years: 8.1 million

Proportion of homeowners who will lose their homes to foreclosure over the next five years: 1/9

Decrease in the number of loans in loss mitigation in May of 2008 compared to January of 2008: 40,000

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle-Class supports the Joint Resolution of Disapproval and opposes the release of TARP funds without additional conditions. $350 billion have been distributed to the nation’s largest financial institutions so far. Yet, struggling middle-class homeowners have enjoyed no apparent benefit from an expenditure of taxpayer dollars sold to them with a promise to pursue foreclosure mitigation efforts. 1.5 million homes were lost to subprime foreclosures between 2005 and 2007 and another 2 million loans are currently more than 60 days delinquent. In the next five years, 8.1 million homes of all mortgage types will be lost to foreclosure. Worse, there has been little accountability for the spending of the original $350 billion in taxpayer funds.

As the former Treasury Secretary notes in his report to Congress requesting the second $350 billion authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the original Troubled Assets Relief Program created by EESA was designed to stabilize the financial system, increase the availability of mortgage finance and avoid preventable foreclosures, and protect taxpayers. While the Treasury Department argues that the first objective has been achieved, the Congressional Oversight Panel charged with monitoring TARP’s implementation has expressed doubt that financial stability has been accomplished as a result of TARP. Treasury has all but ignored the second and third objectives. In congressional testimony, the head of the Center for Responsible Lending pointed out that foreclosure mitigation efforts have largely failed: seriously delinquent loans are at a record level and the redefault rate on modified loans is high. Nearly eight in ten seriously delinquent homeowners are not on track for any loss mitigation, a figure that has worsened over time. One in five loan modifications made in the past year is currently delinquent. Thus, not only are government efforts to prevent initial foreclosures falling short, but loan modification programs are failing to keep homeowners in their homes in the long term. Congressional oversight of the first $350 billion in TARP funds was meager, primarily because financial institutions refused – with Treasury’s approval – to provide detailed accounts of how the bailout money was used. The Treasury Department has not explained why funds were dispensed in the manner they were, while news reports suggest that few banks have used TARP money to increase lending, choosing instead to shore up their capital positions in case of further economic decline and to plot takeovers of rival institutions.

In short, taxpayers have spent several hundred billion dollars to shoulder the risk of the nation’s largest banks and it is unclear what we have received in return. The Senate Joint Resolution of Disapproval provided an opportunity to delay authorization of the second half of TARP funds until a coherent strategy for distribution and oversight that benefited middle-class Americans could be developed. While assurances from President Obama that he will improve TARP administration are welcome, the force of law is necessary to ensure true accountability.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

TARP Related Documents, from the House Financial Services Committee

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, from the Department of the Treasury

“Continued Decay and Shaky Repairs: The State of Subprime Loans Today,” from the Center for Responsible Lending

Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act of 2008

hmoroz — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:12:59 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Percentage increase in annual crude oil production in 2030 if restrictions on access to drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf are lifted, according to the Energy Information Administration: 7

Projected impact of this increased production on the price of oil: “insignificant”

Percent of world’s known reserves in the United States: 1.58%

Percentage of carbon emissions in the United States from residential and commercial buildings: 39

Number of new jobs that the American Solar Energy Society found were generated by U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries in 2006: 8.5 million

Estimated number of jobs created in 2030 in U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, assuming no policy changes before 2030: 16 million

Estimated number of jobs created in 2030 in U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, assuming moderate, incremental federal and state renewable and energy efficiency initiatives and favorable market conditions: 21 million

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Though the extremely high gas prices experienced this summer have eased, middle-class Americans remain strapped by a combination of difficult economic conditions that include elevated fuel costs, a tanking housing market, an endangered financial system, and widespread unemployment. The renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions adopted by the legislation – from credits for energy-efficient home appliances to green building standards and energy-conscious low-income housing – demonstrate a commitment to transforming the environment and the economy that can reduce energy costs and provide jobs for middle-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. Such measures are impotant steps in making the country more energy efficient and ensuring that the nation retains and produces more jobs in renewable energy and technology. Finally, the renewable electricity standard establishes an important incentive for electricity providers to switch to renewable energy sources, a commitment these providers have not made on their own.

The revenue-raising measures appropriately target the oil companies who have benefited grandly from high oil prices. Additionally, ethics reform is desperately needed in the Mineral Management Service after disturbing reports of oil industry influence buying in the agency.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Clean Energy 101, from the Union of Concerned Scientists

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century, from the Appollo Alliance

Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas, from the Energy Information Administration

Government Accountability

Livable Communities Act of 2009

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act of 2009

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act of 2009

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Conference Report

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Senate Version