House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrive for a press conference after House passage of the health care reform bill at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)
“Americans saving for their retirement, to pay for college or ‘a rainy day fund’ to meet future emergencies will be subjected to a tax that will reduce the value of their savings at a time when they are just starting to recover the losses they incurred at the height of the financial crisis,” the letter states.
(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a “global” tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending.
At her weekly press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi said the financial transactions tax (HR4191) currently before Congress would have to be made “global” to keep U.S. investors from taking their business overseas and out of taxable reach.
The House speaker said that a transaction tax could be imposed in conjunction with congressional efforts to divert funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), with funds from both going to fund a second stimulus spending package. (The first stimulus bill, $789-billion, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on Feb. 13, 2009.)
“I believe that the transaction tax still has a great deal of merit,” Pelosi told reporters. “The concern that many of us or others have had is that it will send, it will send transactions overseas.
“Well, let's see, the fact is, what we are talking about is a global transaction [tax],” she said, “something that we would do in conjunction with other G nations, whether it is G8, G20, whatever the current G number is. Because it is really a source of revenue that has really minimal impact on the transaction, but a tremendous impact on helping us meet our needs.”
Pelosi said she thought the idea might have currency among a public eager to see Wall Street firms “pitching in” to help the government grow the economy.
“I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity,” said Pelosi.
The tax idea, the brainchild of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, would mean that all major financial centers – Asia, the EU, U.S., and U.K. – would all have to pass a similar transaction tax to avoid disadvantaging one country’s stock exchange. This would ensure that no matter where a person wanted to buy stock, they would have to pay the new tax.
Brown originally proposed the idea on Nov. 7 at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in St. Andrews, Scotland.
The American version, H.R. 4191 , introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), would levy a separate tax on all stock trades, futures contracts, swaps, credit default swaps, and stock options in an effort to tap the trillions of dollars of such transactions.
Seeking to circumvent concerns about further deficit spending on stimulus programs, the bill attempts to raise approximately $150 billion every year.
“The jobless recovery suggests that the Federal Government must continue to prime the economy, but the record deficit is a real obstacle,” the bill reads.
“To restore Main Street America, a small securities tax on Wall Street should be invested in job creation for Main Street,” says the bill. “This transfer tax would be assessed on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, and futures. A quarter percent (0.25 percent) tax on financial instruments could raise approximately $150,000,000,000 a year.”
The transaction tax proposal was met with opposition from some House Democrats, who signed a “Dear Colleague” letter outlining their opposition to the tax and urging other members of Congress to join them.
“A $150 billion tax on financial transactions will fall on millions of hardworking Americans who are saving for their future through their 401k plans, mutual funds, pensions and other savings vehicles,” wrote Reps. Michael McMahon (D-N.Y.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) in the letter, which is still being circulated on Capitol Hill, a copy of which was obtained by CNSNews.com.
“Supporters of the proposal promote it as a way to make Wall Street pay for economic stimulus, because it would apply only to stocks, futures, forwards and derivatives,” the letter states.
“In reality, it would be a tax on all investment and savings vehicles because mutual funds and money market fund transactions are, by definition, purchases and sales of securities and bonds,” it added.
The three Democrats said that the American version of the proposal would not exempt middle class Americans, as it claims to do, because while the tax would be paid by major stock brokers, those brokers would pass the cost down to everyday investors, pension, and retirement funds.
“Proponents of a transaction tax argue that a small 0.25 percent tax on stocks would be paid for by the highly paid financial traders and would not affect most Americans,” reads the letter. “This is simply not true. A tax on stock transactions would affect every single person who owns and invests in stocks from small business owners to senior citizens.”
“Americans saving for their retirement, to pay for college or ‘a rainy day fund’ to meet future emergencies will be subjected to a tax that will reduce the value of their savings at a time when they are just starting to recover the losses they incurred at the height of the financial crisis,” the letter states.
Pelosi’s office did not return calls for comment on this story
Monday, December 07, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
------------
U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy
Friday , March 27, 2009
By George Russell
A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.
Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations “information note” on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an “effective framework” for dealing with global warming.
The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.
In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the “Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol.” Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.
Getting that deal done has become the United Nations’ highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an “ambitious and effective international response to climate change,” which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.
Just how ambitious the U.N.’s goals are can be seen, but only dimly, in the note obtained by FOX News, which offers in sparse detail both positive and negative consequences of the tools that industrial nations will most likely use to enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.
Among the tools that are considered are the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; “carbon taxes” on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered “environmentally sound.”
Other tools are referred to only vaguely, including “energy policy reform,” which the report indicates could affect “large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports.” When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have “positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels.”
In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes “may induce some industrial relocation” to “less regulated host countries.” Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies.
The note adds only that industrial relocation “would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment.” But at the same time it “would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries.”
There are also entirely new kinds of tariffs and trade protectionist barriers such as those termed in the note as “border carbon adjustment”— which, the note says, can impose “a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically” under more strict environmental regimes.
Another form of “adjustment” would require exporters to “buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically.”
The impact of both schemes, the note says, “would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers.” (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is “foreign.”) The note adds that “If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged.” Nothing is said about the consequences if such fairness was not achieved.
Indeed, only rarely does the “information note” attempt to inform readers in dollar terms of the impact of “spillover effects” from the potential policy changes it discusses. In a brief mention of consumer subsidies for fossil fuels, the note remarks that such subsidies in advanced economies exceed $60 billion a year, while they exceed $90 billion a year in developing economies.”
But calculations of the impact of tariffs, offsets, or other subsidies is rare. In a reference to the impact of declining oil exports, the report says that Saudi Arabia has determined the loss to its economy at between $100 billion and $200 billion by 2030, but said nothing about other oil exporters.
One reason for the lack of detail, the note indicates, is that impact would vary widely depending on the nature and scope of the policies adopted (and, although the note does not mention it, on the severity of the greenhouse reduction targets).
But even when it does hazard a guess at specific impacts, the report seems curiously hazy. A “climate change levy on aviation” for example, is described as having undetermined “negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce,” as well as “tourism services.” But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)
In other cases, as when discussing the “increased costs of traditional exports” under a new environmental regime, the report confines itself to terse description. Changes in standards and labeling for exported goods, for example, “may demand costly changes to the production process.” If subsidies and tariffs affect exports, the note says, the “economic and social consequences of dampening their viability may, for some countries and sectors, be significant.”
Much depends, of course, on the extent to which harsher or more lenient greenhouse gas reduction targets demand more or less drastic policies for their achievement.
And, precisely because the Bonn meeting is a stage for negotiating those targets, the note is silent. Instead it suggests that more bureaucratic work is needed “to deepen the understanding of the full nature and scale of such impacts.”
But outside the Bonn process, other experts have been much more blunt about the draconian nature of the measures they deem necessary to make “effective” greenhouse gas reductions.
In an influential but highly controversial paper called “Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change,” British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, has declared that industrial economies would need to cut their per capita carbon dioxide emissions by “at least 80% by 2050,” while the biggest economies, like the U.S.’s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent.
Stern also calls for “immediate and binding” reduction targets for developed nations of 20 percent to 40 percent by 2020.
To meet Stern’s 2050 goals, he says, among other things, “most of the world’s electricity production will need to have been decarbonized.”
By way of comparison, according to the U.S. Department Of Energy, roughly 72 percent of U.S. electrical power generation in 2007 was derived from burning fossil fuels, with just 6 percent coming from hydro-power and less than 3 percent from non-nuclear renewable and “other” sources. And even then, those “other” non-fossil sources included wood and biomass — which, when burned, are major emitters of carbon
Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation. Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: "... it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
Dem Rep.: "I'm Not Doing Town Hall Meetings; I'm Not Going To Give Those People A Forum"… Rep. Louise Slaughter: "I'm not doing town meetings; I'm not going to give those people a forum. I went through it with the Clinton health care bill, with the John Birch Society, where we had to have police around, and people hysterically crying…"
