Big Nuke Billions Lurk in Obama's Budget

Published on Thursday, February 17, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Big Nuke Billions Lurk in Obama's Budget

by Harvey Wasserman

Barack Obama's 2012 budget marks a major escalation in the nuclear war against a green-powered future, whose advocates are already fighting back.
Amidst massive budget cuts for social and environmental programs, Obama wants $36 billion in loan guarantees for a reactor industry that cannot secure sufficient private "marketplace" financing for new construction.
In the past decade the reactor industry has spent at least $640 million lobbying for these massive advance bailouts. But since 2007, safe energy advocates have succeeded in keeping them out of the federal budget.
The $36 billion Obama wants to underwrite new reactor construction would be added to $18.5 billion set aside under George W. Bush. In 2010 Obama allocated $8.33 billion of that for two reactors under construction in Georgia. The Continuing Resolution for funding the government until the end of the 2011 fiscal year slashes all loan guarantees for energy except those for nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment.
Obama's proposed 2012 budget does contain some additional money for renewables. But it also allocates $97 million for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) which are untested and unproven. SMRs are vulnerable to public health, radioactive waste and potential terror problems that parallel those plaguing the larger light water reactors that have proven so economically and ecologically disastrous throughout the past half-century.
Industry allies in Congress are joining the White House in trying to classify both large and small reactors as "clean energy." Though cosmetic, the designation would allow reactor backers to fit atomic power under the rubric of long-term goals for cleaning up America's hugely polluting energy supply.
Price tags for proposed new reactors have recently doubled and tripled. Projected at $2-3 billion as few as three years ago, proposed projects in Florida, Texas and elsewhere have soared to $10 billion and more.
The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the failure rate for reactor loan guarantees could well exceed 50%. The economic history of atomic power has been catastrophic, with the previous generation of reactors coming in on average around 200% over original cost projections. Reactors now under construction in Finland and France have soared to billions of dollars over budget and are years behind schedule.

In Georgia, where rate-payers are being forced to fund reactor construction even if the plant never opens, critics fear costs at the Vogtle site are certain to soar. New projects proposed for Texas, Maryland and South Carolina are also plagued by financial doubts.
At the same time, major breakthroughs in solar cell technology have prompted a wide range of studies showing deployment of green energy to be cheaper than new atomic power, and growing moreso.
But while slashing social programs, Obama seems determined to use taxpayer money to fund a radioactive technology that grows ever more expensive and uncompetitive.
Can the green power movement again stop the new loan guarantees, as it's done since 2007?
"This year, with more public attention on government spending, it seems even unlikelier that Congress will approve it," says Michael Mariotte, Executive Director of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service.
For a green-powered future, says Mariotte, "no funding for new reactors is acceptable."
Register your outrage at http://nukefree.org/nirs-tell-congress-no-36-billion-loan-guarantees-other-nuke-handouts.

Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and writes regularly for www.freepress.org.

Related articles

• Harvey Wasserman: Obama's $36 Billion Nuke-Powered Giveaway (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama's 2012 budget includes push for 'mini-nuke' reactor development (engadget.com)
• Harvey Wasserman: A $7 Billion New Nuke Attack (huffingtonpost.com)
• Budget battle over funding for nukes (politico.com)
• Nuclear Energy Suffers Another Big Blow -- Will the Dying Industry Continue to Beg for More Government Subsidies? (alternet.org)
• A Question of Balance (switchboard.nrdc.org)
• Vt nuke reactor building cleared after steam leak (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Harvey Wasserman: America's Eggshell Nukes (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama 2012 budget provides $8 billion for clean energy (scientificamerican.com)
• 3 states sue Nuclear Regulatory Commission over nuke waste storage policy - NY Times (nytimes.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Published on Thursday, September 30, 2010 by The Nation

Hands Off Social Security

by Bernie Sanders

A White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen. The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed, but we can and must address them without punishing America’s workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.

First, let’s be clear: Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That’s a lie! The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today’s $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039. Got that? In case you don’t, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to ever eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years. It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.
The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing anti-government crowd is based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For 75 years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.
Despite this outstanding record, Social Security has become a political football. For ideological reasons, some in Congress believe that government should not be in the business of providing benefits to seniors or the disabled. They want to privatize Social Security. Others say, incorrectly, that Social Security is going bankrupt, so benefits should be reduced and the retirement age set at 70. I strongly disagree with both assertions.
While the critics profess concern about Social Security’s financial future, their fuzzy math ignores the fact that this highly successful program has not added a dime to our deficit. From the day when the first check landed in the Ludlow, Vt., mailbox of retired legal secretary Ida May Fuller on Jan. 31, 1940, Social Security has more than paid for itself.
With regard to the future of Social Security, there are some really dangerous ideas out there, and one proposal that makes a lot of sense.
One of the worst ideas is to privatize Social Security. After the greed and recklessness of Wall Street caused markets to collapse in 2008, does anyone still seriously believe it would be a good idea to turn the retirement security of millions of Americans over to Wall Street CEOs whose dishonesty and irresponsibility have no end? Their administrative fees alone would take a 15 percent bite out of workers’ retirement investments, not to mention the real threat of another stock market collapse. In sharp contrast, administrative costs for Social Security are less than 1 percent of the program’s budget. Most importantly, despite economic conditions and the ups and downs of the stock market, Social Security has never failed to pay full benefits to every eligible beneficiary.
Another horrible idea is to move the retirement age up to 70. That would cheat today’s young workers out of about 15 percent of their retirement benefits over a lifetime. The proposal also ignores the reality that millions of workers in demanding professions simply cannot continue to work until they are 70. The upshot for them would be reduced lifetime benefits for retiring “early.” Lower-income workers, those less likely to have other savings, would be hurt the most.
In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal which is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multi-millionaire. That’s wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future – for our kids and grandchildren and great grandchildren.
As we mark the anniversary of Social Security, now is the time to pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. For 75 years, Social Security has lifted millions of people out of poverty and has provided stability and dignity for the elderly and for other vulnerable Americans. Our goal today must be to make sure that Social Security will be as strong and stable 75 years from now as it is today.

© 2010 The Nation

Bernie Sanders, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, is the longest-serving Independent in US Congressional history.

by Bernie Sanders

A White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen. The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed, but we can and must address them without punishing America’s workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.

First, let’s be clear: Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That’s a lie! The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today’s $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039. Got that? In case you don’t, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to ever eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years. It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.
The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing anti-government crowd is based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For 75 years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.
Despite this outstanding record, Social Security has become a political football. For ideological reasons, some in Congress believe that government should not be in the business of providing benefits to seniors or the disabled. They want to privatize Social Security. Others say, incorrectly, that Social Security is going bankrupt, so benefits should be reduced and the retirement age set at 70. I strongly disagree with both assertions.
While the critics profess concern about Social Security’s financial future, their fuzzy math ignores the fact that this highly successful program has not added a dime to our deficit. From the day when the first check landed in the Ludlow, Vt., mailbox of retired legal secretary Ida May Fuller on Jan. 31, 1940, Social Security has more than paid for itself.
With regard to the future of Social Security, there are some really dangerous ideas out there, and one proposal that makes a lot of sense.
One of the worst ideas is to privatize Social Security. After the greed and recklessness of Wall Street caused markets to collapse in 2008, does anyone still seriously believe it would be a good idea to turn the retirement security of millions of Americans over to Wall Street CEOs whose dishonesty and irresponsibility have no end? Their administrative fees alone would take a 15 percent bite out of workers’ retirement investments, not to mention the real threat of another stock market collapse. In sharp contrast, administrative costs for Social Security are less than 1 percent of the program’s budget. Most importantly, despite economic conditions and the ups and downs of the stock market, Social Security has never failed to pay full benefits to every eligible beneficiary.
Another horrible idea is to move the retirement age up to 70. That would cheat today’s young workers out of about 15 percent of their retirement benefits over a lifetime. The proposal also ignores the reality that millions of workers in demanding professions simply cannot continue to work until they are 70. The upshot for them would be reduced lifetime benefits for retiring “early.” Lower-income workers, those less likely to have other savings, would be hurt the most.
In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal which is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multi-millionaire. That’s wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future – for our kids and grandchildren and great grandchildren.
As we mark the anniversary of Social Security, now is the time to pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. For 75 years, Social Security has lifted millions of people out of poverty and has provided stability and dignity for the elderly and for other vulnerable Americans. Our goal today must be to make sure that Social Security will be as strong and stable 75 years from now as it is today.

© 2010 The Nation

Bernie Sanders, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, is the longest-serving Independent in US Congressional history.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hands off Social Security (politico.com)
• Twelve Senators, 104 House members vow to vote against Social Security cuts (dailykos.com)
• Robert Naiman: The Washington Post Wants Your Social Security to Pay for the War (huffingtonpost.com)

Health Care Costs Should Be Priority

Cover via Amazon

Published on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
Attack Wall Street, Not Social Security

by Dean Baker

Suppose our top generals described the growing threat from a hostile Middle East power. The country has tens of billions of oil dollars, a growing army, chemical and biological weapons, and is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. After carefully describing the risks posed by this country, our generals suggested an immediate attack on Canada. They explain that combating this Middle East country would be difficult, but defeating Canada is easy.

This is essentially the story of the latest attack on social security. Everyone who looks at the projections agrees; the scary budget stories being hyped in the media and by the Wall Street crew are driven almost entirely by projections of exploding healthcare costs. But instead of proposing ways to fix the healthcare system, these deficit hawks want to attack social security. They tell us that fixing healthcare is hard. By contrast they think that cutting money from social security will be relatively easy.

The facts on this are straightforward and known by everyone involved in the budget debate. The US healthcare system is broken. We pay more than twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy countries.

And it is projected to get worse. In three or four decades we are projected to pay three or four times as much per person for healthcare as people in countries like Germany and Canada. Since more than half of our healthcare is paid through public sector programmes like Medicare and Medicaid, this explosion in healthcare costs will bankrupt the government if it actually occurs. Of course it will also devastate the private sector.

On the other hand, it is easy to show that if we contain healthcare costs then our budget problems are relatively minor. In fact, the current projections of enormous budget deficits two or three decades out would flip over to projections of enormous budget surpluses if our healthcare costs were comparable to those of any other wealthy country.

Logic would dictate that our top priority should be getting our healthcare costs under control. But fixing healthcare is difficult because, as we saw in the healthcare debate, this means confronting the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical supply industry, highly paid medical specialists and other powerful lobbies.

The deficit hawks don't want to fight this fight. Defeating these powerful interest groups would be a hard fight. And for the deficit hawks it would likely be an especially painful fight since these are their friends.

By contrast, the Wall Street deficit hawks don't have friends who depend on social security for their income. Wall Street investment bankers like Peter Peterson and Robert Rubin are unlikely to associate with such people. This is why they see attacking social security as easy.

Of course attacking social security makes as much sense as our generals' plan to attack Canada. The Congressional Budget Office's projections show that the programme can pay full benefits until the year 2044 with no changes whatsoever. Even after that date the programme would always pay a higher benefit than what current retirees receive, even though somewhat less than the full scheduled benefits.

The long-term problem is not that anything improper has been done with the programme; the reason that social security is projected to eventually face a shortfall is that future generations are projected to live longer than we do. This raises costs since our children and grandchildren are projected to enjoy longer retirements than we do. In short, there is no story of generational inequity here, contrary to what the Wall Street deficit hawks say.

If our deficit hawk generals are too scared to take on the healthcare industry then we also have to also make them too scared to take on social security. If we need to reduce the deficit the best place to start is a financial speculation tax. A modest set of financial transactions taxes, like the 0.5% tax on stock trades in the United Kingdom, can easily raise $150bn a year. This would go a long way toward addressing future budget shortfalls and it would raise money from people who can afford it: the Wall Street crew whose financial shenanigans led to the meltdown.

Federal Reserve board chairman Ben Bernanke recently suggested cutting social security because: "that's where the money is". That's not true, the real money is on Wall Street. Let's go get it.
© 2010 Guardian News and Media Limited

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer ( www.conservativenannystate.org) and the more recently published Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of The Bubble Economy. He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. You can find it at the American Prospect's web site.

Related articles by Zemanta

• BoyarMiller Forum Panelists Offer Insight Into the "Continuing Crisis in Healthcare" (eon.businesswire.com)
• PROMISES, PROMISES: Health plan maps Obama pledges (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• URGENT: Stop CNN From Airing Deficit Propaganda (seeingtheforest.com)