"We
must build things in America again. SECTORS will improve training and
employment opportunities for Iowa's workforce and help businesses and
manufacturers thrive and expand in today's global economy." What role can the federal government play in reducing Iowa’s unemployment rate? According to 2nd District Congressman Dave Loebsack, Congress could pass H.R. 1855, the Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success (SECTORS) Act. This bill would “promote long term competitiveness for American industries and employment opportunities for America's workers by supporting "sector" or "industry partnerships," which allow businesses, unions, educators, and the public workforce system to develop and implement plans that help workers train for and advance in high-demand and emerging industries.”
According to Loebsack, “the SECTORS Act is endorsed nationwide by over 150 businesses, workforce and vocational organizations, manufacturing associations, colleges and universities, chambers of commerce, and training and human services organizations….passage of this legislation marks the beginning of our focus in the House on a ‘Make It In America Agenda.’ We must provide the tools necessary to reinvigorate our highly capable manufacturing sector. We must build things in America again. SECTORS will improve training and employment opportunities for Iowa's workforce and help businesses and manufacturers thrive and expand in today's global economy.”
The SECTORS Act found bipartisan support in the U. S. House of Representatives and passed the house in a voice vote on July 19. It has been read in the U.S. Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions where it awaits action.
According to Iowa Workforce Development, unemployment in the state stood at 6.8% in June 2010 with 113,600 unemployed workers. In order to get to a more reasonable unemployment rate, tens of thousands of Iowans need to find work. One hopes the SECTORS Act will provide a mechanism to contribute to this effort to reduce unemployment and sustain viable industry sectors. Whether the bill will get out of committee in the Senate is unclear. If the SECTORS Act is signed into law, the impact on unemployment is uncertain, even if the bill addresses the specific need of employers being unable to locate enough qualified workers in specific manufacturing sectors. Despite these challenges, this was an effort worth making and Congressman Loebsack should be commended for leading this effort.
At the same time Iowans deal with unemployment, the impact of workforce globalization is being felt. What Iowans consider to be a living wage is much better than that in other parts of the world. From a cost of labor standpoint, it does not always make sense for businesses to manufacture their products in Iowa or in the United States.
Business enterprises often determine that to support global distribution of products, locating manufacturing in Iowa or in North America may not produce the best cost structure. If their largest markets are in other countries, manufacturing is more efficiently located closer to those markets. This is increasingly true as countries like India and China improve the standard of living for a large segment of their population and increase demand for manufactured goods. If the raw materials and workforce are abundant closer to market, that is where manufacturing capacity will be located despite what Iowans do to attract manufacturing jobs.
To some extent, the SECTORS Act would protect the manufacturing jobs we have by making sure the workforce can meet employers’ needs. However, large scale enterprises consider manufacturing from a global perspective. Manufacturing capacity currently located in Iowa could be re-located if the market changes or if there is a compelling cost benefit to locate manufacturing elsewhere. The federal government can play a role in job retention and creation and should pass legislation like Loebsack’s SECTORS Act. The federal government should also refrain from creation of tax incentives for companies to move manufacturing capacity outside the United States.
A 6.8% unemployment rate is high enough to indicate that no single solution will get Iowans back to work. It is also evidence that holding a job that pays a living wage is becoming an increasingly tenuous situation in the post-Reagan era of globalization.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul
Deaton
Click Hereto contribute to the Loebsack for Congress Campaign.
Elena Kagan and Iowa's Senior Senatorby Paul Deaton
We were standing in Montana Senator Jon Tester’s office when we had the first conversation about the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the nomination of Elena Kagan as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. The author had been on an extended road trip and coming down from the isolation of a mountain cabin to urban Missoula gave us a chance to visit a friend who is a staffer for Senator Tester and to see if anything had changed in society while we were gone.
No, not much had changed. The only surprise about the vote was that Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) voted for the Kagan nomination. Iowa’s senior senator, Chuck Grassley, voted no with the remaining Republicans, which was expected in a Senate where almost every action has become politicized. The Democrats on the judiciary committee all voted for the nomination. The next question will be whether the full senate will be able to break a filibuster of the nomination. One hopes they will.
President Obama released the following statement on the judiciary committee vote, “Elena Kagan is one of this country’s leading legal minds, and has shown throughout this process that, if confirmed, she would be a fair and impartial Supreme Court Justice who understands how decisions made by the Court affect the lives of everyday Americans. Today’s vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee is a bipartisan affirmation of her strong performance during her confirmation hearings. I want to thank the Judiciary Committee for giving her a thorough, timely and respectful hearing, and I look forward to the full Senate taking up and voting on this nomination before the August recess.”
Senator Grassley differed from the president in his press release, suggesting that Kagan was hypocritical. “Solicitor General Kagan failed to answer directly many of the questions posed to her. This was extremely disappointing, especially since she previously took the position that Supreme Court nominees should be forthcoming in their answers on substantive issues” said Grassley. He went on to list other reasons for his no vote, including this reference to the second amendment, “At the hearing, she declined to fully commit to upholding the constitution when it came to the Second Amendment.” In all, I counted a dozen reasons Grassley gave for his no vote.
Last Sunday, the author spent time with a number of Democratic attorneys in Mount Vernon, Iowa. I asked some of them, “What does Grassley’s reference to the second amendment mean in reference to the Kagan nomination?” The second amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” so I did not get the connection.
One noted, “even though the primary is over, Grassley is pandering to his base.” Another said, “I don’t know. It is one more piece of evidence that senator Grassley needs to be retired.” Iowans deserve better than this.
Surprisingly, it is in Senator Graham’s press release, that a grain of truth appears about the Kagan nomination which can be applied to Iowa’s senior senator.
“The Constitution puts a requirement on me, as a senator, to not replace my judgment for the President’s,” said Graham. “I’m not supposed to think of the 100 reasons I would pick somebody different. It puts upon me a standard that stood the test of time: Is the person qualified? Is it a person of good character? Are they someone that understands the difference between being a judge and a politician? And, quite frankly, I think she's passed all those tests.”
Graham went on to say, “I view my role as a United States Senator in part by protecting the independence of the judiciary, and by making sure that hard-fought elections have meaning in terms of their results within our Constitution. At the end of the day, Ms. Kagan is not someone I would have chosen, but I think she will serve honorably.”
While Graham is no progressive, he gets to something fundamental. Elections have consequences. When we have an elected official who sifts through the hearing testimony to finds reasons to deny the president’s appointment to the Supreme Court, we have to ask ourselves, does Senator Grassley represent our values? With each vote, on every committee, it is clear that Senator Grassley does not represent the views of everyday folks like us. It is time for Senator Grassley to retire.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul
Deaton
Click here to contribute to the Roxanne Conlin for US Senate Campaign.
The Mind Wanders During the Summer by Dave Bradley
In the “no-duh” department Fox News(?) has been caught doctoring videos
again to victimize a member of the Obama administration, Shirley
Sherrod, who is liberal and a person of color. This was their third
scalp following the attacks on Van Jones and ACORN.
The Iowa connection in this is of course Secretary of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack. Vilsack apologized profusely for over-reaction and took all the
blame for the dismissal of Sherrod himself. I am finding it hard to
believe it was all Vilsack. But I believe that the Obama administration
will be very happy to let this story fade and disappear down the memory
hole. But out of the whole incident came one of the best pieces off
journalism I have seen in a long, long time. Rachel Maddow set the
background for our current racial climate with a great little history
lesson. Then she applies that to Fox and their role in the continuance
of racial politics. Both pieces need to be seen. Unfortunately many of the videos out there
begin with Glenn Beck and ignore the historical background. I found
this site to have a full video. That is the first video. The second
video is not as much of a must set, but very, very interesting. Running
time for the first is about 12 minutes, the second about 9 minutes.
In a story that is unrelated, but I will tie in a sneaky little
maneuver, out daughter and her husband moved from Indianapolis to the
Twin Cities. The economy is working for her. Her services were sought
out by a company and they hired her away. Moving to Minnesota was
something they have always dreamed of. One of the reasons that they wanted to get back to this area is the
type of people that live in Iowa and Minnesota. To quote my daughter
“They are just more honest and real.” They plan of helping the Tarryl
Clark campaign once they are fully settle. Clark is Michelle Bachmann’s
opponent in Minnesota 6th district. And while our daughter does not live
in the sixth, it is a short drive away. And now the tie. I hate liars. Especially liars who are in positions of
power. Whether it is a church covering up a sexual scandal or a
politician or news company distorting facts and videos for gain of some
sort. And this is precisely why I am fighting so hard to send Grassley back
to his farm. Grassley has always been a slick politician in the guise of
an ‘Aw shucks” down home persona. But his performance in the past
decade and especially since Obama has been president has been little
short of totally dishonest. Deserved or not, Grassley had an image of an
honest politician. He has traded on that image to sell Iowans on things
like tax cuts for the rich, two wars that have killed untold thousands
and cost trillions, and recently to greatly alter things like the
stimulus, health care and Wall Street reform. If there is one thing I would love to see it would be Chuck Grassley
being forced to wear NASCAR type outfits with all his sponsor logo in
full view. Then he could send out a news clip with a picture pointing to
the Goldman-Sachs logo to explain his latest vote. I need to learn how
to use photoshop. Last weekend was the fifth gathering of Netroots Nation in Las Vegas.
Over 2000 attended. Candidates and office holders came to pay homage.
The blogosphere has become a crucial tool, not only for Democrats, but
simply as a tool to disseminate information. Which is why the right wing
continues to work so hard to end net neutrality. We can not let up
defending net neutrality for even a minute. Let your congressman know. Back to radio reports next week. I could not let the Maddow piece go by without commenting on it.
Dave Bradley is a self-described
retired observer of American politics "trying to figure out how we got
so screwed up." An
Iowa City native currently living in West Liberty, Dave and his wife
Carol have two grown children who "sadly had to leave the state to find
decent paying jobs."
Iowa
Progressive Radio: Fallon Forum ScheduleMonday -
Thursday from 7:00-800 pm, join us for the fusion of politics
and civility at 98.3 WOW-FM and
on-line at 983wowfm.com.
Call (515) 312-0983 or (866) 908-TALK to participate in the
conversation, and if you miss the show, you can hear it as a podcast.
Dear Friends,
Monday, we talk with Ismael Hossein-zadeh, professor of economics at Drake University, about the recently-passed financial reform bill. Too much regulation? Not enough? Just right? It's hard to know, given the complexity of the legislation. But with the help of two learned folks (Cathy Mansfield with the Drake Law School joins us next Monday), maybe we can sort it out.
Also on Monday, Sherry Borzo joins us to talk about her business, Storied Gifts.
Tuesday, Ed's on his own again talking about politics and the economy. A great starting point for that discussion is Richard Doak's recent column about the myth of job "creation." Doak poses a provocative question: (1) "Has there ever been a more uninspiring choice for governor?" and makes an equally provocative statement: (2) "There is absolutely nothing a governor can do about the economy." Agree? Disagree? Ed is pretty much with Doak on this one, but we welcome contrary opinions.
Also on Tuesday, Sam Tuomi tells us about the 48-hour Film Festival.
Wednesday, film maker Neil Wells joins us to talk about the film industry tax credit fiasco. Yes, with legal proceedings in progress, it's still an issue, sorry to say. Was the film tax credit an appropriate role of government? This one's not as black-and-white as you might think.
Thursday, Kathy Kelly is the co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence in Chicago and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. She joins us in the studio for a discussion of her recent trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where she visited the victims of US drone attacks.
Also, Max Wellman talks about his upcoming concert at Hoyt Sherman, and we give away two tickets to the August 12th Best of City Screening and Awards Ceremony for the 48-Hour Film Festival.
So join us Monday - Thursday for the fusion of politics and civility at 98.3 WOW-FM and online. Call (515) 312-0983 or (866) 908-TALK to participate in the conversation. You can hear the show as a podcast, too, and please help support local progressive talk radio with a donation through Pay Pal or by check to PO Box 13421, Des Moines, IA 50310. And don’t forget to listen to Bradshaw, weekdays from 1:00-4:00. Thanks!
Labor Update: Iowa and the Inheritance Tax by Tracy Kurowski
$14.8 billion could be used for many things. For one, it’s double what Obama invested in high speed rail last year through the stimulus bill.
$14.8 billion could also purchase 3500 windmills large enough to power 1.75 million homes. The plus side to this investment is that the power generated from this renewable electricity source would pay back this initial investment in just two years.
Nice investments if you had the money. Unfortunately our government has $14.8 billion less than it would have collected so far just this year due to the continuation of Bush’s inheritance tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.
A very good book to read is called Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos. It is about the inability of a person to make sense of numbers that rule their lives. Because a large portion of the world’s people have a passing understanding of numbers to begin with, it makes it quite easy for conservatives to convince 95% of the people in this country that somehow their interests were threatened by increasing taxes on the richest 5%.
Because people hear the word billions with only a vaguely different tone than millions, it’s difficult to demonstrate just how much money this is. And the fact that the Oprahs, Gateses, and Steinbrenners of the world with substantially more assets to spare aren’t taxed more progressively is by its very nature – the death knell of democracy in a capitalist state.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, along Senator Tom Harkin and Walt Disney’s heir Abigail Disney, are calling for the reinstatement of the inheritance tax to pre-Bush Administration levels. Read a note from Trumka’s Facebook page referencing this call and the reasons why:
Reprinted from a Facebook note by Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO Trumka: Boost Fairness and Revenue with Estate Tax Reinstatement
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 3:58pm
"New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and hundreds of other multimillionaires (and some billionaires, like Steinbrenner) who have passed away this year disproved the old adage, 'the only two things certain in life are death and taxes.'
They couldn’t dodge death, but their estates have dodged taxes—some $14.8 billion so far this year, according to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA). The federal estate tax that in the past applied to multimillion-dollar fortunes fully expired at the end of 2009, after President George W. Bush’s 2001 $1.35 trillion tax cut package for the wealthy exempted larger and larger estates from the levy each year.
Today, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, philanthropist and Walt Disney heir Abigail Disney and others called for a reinstatement of the tax.
During a telephone press conference sponsored today by United for a Fair Economy (UFE), Trumka said: 'Today, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the suspension of the estate tax and other policies favoring the super-rich are key contributors to our nation’s budget deficits.
Our nation desperately needs revenue to invest in job growth, education, health and infrastructure. Rubin said the revenue generated by an estate tax could be used for public investments that would create “a rapid spend out” to boost job creation.
It’s time to restore the estate tax and restore it now. It’s a progressive tax and can supply revenue without any supply side effects.'
The AFL-CIO, UFE and others on the call said the estate tax should be restored at its 2009 levels or stronger. In 2009, the estate tax exempted the first $3.5 million and applied a 45 percent rate thereafter. Trumka said the AFL-CIO has endorsed two current bills. The first, from Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), includes a $2 million exemption and rates of 45 percent to 55 percent. That would raise about $31 billion more over 10 years than the 2009 levels.
Legislation from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.) and Harkin has a $3.5 million exemption and rates of 45 percent to 65 percent and would produce about $62 billion more over the next 10 years than the 2009 levels.
Says Harkin: 'Across this country, schools are firing teachers, first responders are underfunded and hard-working Americans are being denied basic services, all while our deficit reaches record highs. And yet, billion-dollar fortunes are exempt from paying their fair share of estate taxes. There is something wrong with this picture.'
A proposal from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) would boost the 2009 exemption and lower the rate at a cost, Trumka said, of $544 billion over 10 years. He asked, 'Does the estate tax really need to be further reduced?'
Many Republicans have long called for complete abolishment of the estate tax, and Sen.Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced an amendment to a small business bill to permanently repeal the tax.
Said Trumka:It is ludicrous that some in Congress are proposing to end the estate tax at the same time they oppose action to create jobs.
Our economy remains on the edge of a double-dip recession, and we urgently need to create millions of jobs and invest in our future, not give more tax breaks to the wealthy.
Disney, the grandniece of Walt and granddaughter of Roy E. Disney, stressed the fairness of the estate tax and scoffed at those who claim the estate tax is a heavy burden for the wealthy. The founder of the philanthropic Daphne Foundation that funds programs to fight poverty in New York City said: My life of great comfort was made possible despite the estate tax. We should never avoid paying to the government our fair share."
~Tracy Kurowski has been active in
the labor movement for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when
she taught adult education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She
moved to the Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political
coordinator with the Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker
for Congressman Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.
Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every Monday on Blog for
Iowa
An
Iowa Veteran Says Let's Invest in Peace by Ed Flaherty
The Elephant in the Room
There is broad, legitimate concern about the huge federal deficit (just went over $1 trillion, with three months to go in FY 2010) and the ballooning national debt($13.2 trillion).
The prospect of annual deficits of a trillion-plus dollars for the next decade is unsettling to all, regardless of one’s affection or disaffection for Keynsian thought. Now, what to do about it has unleashed a plethora of proposals and opinions, both on what has created the situation and what to do about it.
At the risk of employing too broad a brush, proposals and opinions go somewhat like the following:
Most Republican politicians feel:
- The deficits have been caused by the inhumane burden of taxes on business and the wealthy, and by the equally crippling Federal regulations imposed on business and crazy spending by the Federal government on give-away programs to ”little” people.
- The deficit and debt can be brought under control by:
1. Cutting all non-defense discretional spending, and approving no such spending unless it is “paid for” without increasing the deficit. To-wit, the recent unanimous Repub refusal to extend unemployment benefits.
2.Making permanent the Bush tax cuts which are scheduled to expire at year’s end.
3.Putting a moratorium on ANY new government regulations.
4.Wishful thinking
5.Cutting Social Security benefits, primarily by raising the age of eligibility to 70.
Most Democratic politicians feel:
- The deficits have been caused by eight years of mismanagement under GWB, and those Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
- The deficits and debt can be brought under control by:
1. Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire at year’s end, keeping them for folks making less than $250,000 or $200,000.
2. Putting a little bit tighter regulations on banks, oil companies, and other corporations.
3.Wishful thinking
4.Cutting Social Security benefits, primarily by raising the age of eligibility to 70 (ala recent comments by Stoyer & Pelosi).
President Obama advocates a freeze on all domestic discretional spending (which accounts for a whopping 15% of Federal expenditures) and appoints a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (which operates almost as opaquely as Cheney’s energy group in 2001). All indications are that their big piece of advice will be to cut Social Security benefits, primarily by raising the age of eligibility to 70.
The common element mentioned in my quick & dirty lists above is RAISE Social Security Age to 70. The commonality unmentioned in the above is the elephant in the room, Defense (war) spending.
The FY 2011 budget proposal calls for $878 Billion for Security Agencies (Pentagon largest by far). When one adds in interest on national debt due to past & current wars, military pensions, etc. the figure is more like $1.1 trillion. It is exceeding $1 trillion for the first time in 2010. Very few “conventional” politicians dare to question this sacred cow. However, there may be a sea change coming. It’s not just suspect peace groups decrying the war budget. Listen to and read much of the tea-partier stuff and you see increased criticism and even outrage at out-of-control military spending. ).
The US Department of Commerce indicates that a billion dollars in tax revenue allocated to the military creates 8,500 jobs, as opposed to 12,900 jobs created by the same dollars invested in education. Ron Paul and Barney Frank (unlikely team-mates in any fantasy league) spearheaded the Sustainable Defense Task Force, which detailed a very conservative path to cut $1 Trillion from war expenditures over the next decade (that $1 T did not include the savings from the cessation of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars). The $1 Trillion figure has been mentioned a few times. A recap:
- FY 2010 Federal Deficit hit $1 T as of June 30th - Costs for national “Defense” have gone over $1T for the first time in history - Sustainable Defense Task Force details how to save $1 T in next 10 years - Direct costs to US of our Iraq & Afghanistan wars passed the $1 T mark a few months ago
There is a myriad of reasons for getting control of the military budget (and thus of the military) beyond economic common sense. If a trillion dollars is what it really takes to keep the US secure, heck, let’s spend it. But how does one justify the US spending as much on war as the rest of the world combined? How do we justify 800 bases overseas?. How can we spend so much money on security and be utterly defenseless against a hole in the ocean a few miles from our shore? How can we justify spending $1T per year on a Defense Department that has NEVER been audited? How can we throw billions more into an Afghanistan war that is based on our making the Afghan government incorruptible when we allocate a new $100 million to Blackwater for “our” security there?
If we believe in peace, let’s invest a bit in it. Investing $1 T per year in war ensures we will have continuous wars.
A fair and progressive tax system, investing in peace, and using savings from decreased war spending to reduce need for deficits will make US more secure. Social Security’s solvency is sound for the next 26 years. Let’s tweak its funding (what would an increase from the current $106,800 cap to $200,000 produce, and maybe a 1% surtax on capital gains?) and make Social Security secure.
Let’s not follow the lead of that wonderful John Boehner who said that “ensuring there’s enough money for the war will require reforming the country’s entitlement system.” And yell at any Democratic politician who wants to up the Social Security age to 70. They would give away the farm, as they did when they gave up “single-payer” without negotiation in the medical bill fight.
Lastly, it needs to be stated that we need new stimulus funding to tackle the chronic unemployment problem. That may require some additional borrowing and short term deficits, but could it not be funded by pragmatic war spending cuts? I do imagine that that would make some Chamber of Commerce member military contractors used to slurping at the public trough upset. Another suggested read – Dana Priest’s and William Arkin’s Washington Post series on the explosive growth of military contractors since 9-11).
Ed
Flaherty
is a member of Veterans for Peace and Johnson County Democrats
Central Committee and other suspect groups. Ed is a retired banker.
Letter from Congressman Dave Loebsack on the Gulf Oil SpillJuly 19, 2010
Dear [Constituent],
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding British Petroleum's oil spill and their efforts to stop the oil from spreading throughout the Gulf of Mexico. I'm honored to represent you. Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa's Second District with the best representation possible.
I am deeply troubled by the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill that began with a rig explosion and tragic loss of eleven lives and has since become an environmental and economic catastrophe threatening sensitive marine ecosystems, public health and the local economies of Gulf Coast region. My heart goes out to the families and businesses in the coastal communities in the Gulf - including the fishing, seafood, and tourism industries, who are bracing for the worst.
Since the explosion, efforts have been made to improve the response to the disaster and streamline cooperation between BP, localities directly affected by the spill, and elected officials in Gulf Coast states. In addition, the Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force have been working to contain the environmental damage since the explosion and close the leaking oil well; however, more must be done.
BP's oil spill has become the largest oil disaster in America's history and I believe it is imperative that Congress hold all relevant actors fully accountable, including BP, Transocean, Halliburton and the federal agencies with oil industry oversight. BP has stated that they plan to pay all claims, and recently created a $20 billion independently-run account managed by Kenneth Feinberg who oversaw a similar fund for the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. The account which I urged to be created is meant to ensure that all employees, families, and businesses of the Gulf region receive compensation for their losses due to BP's oil spill and that no taxpayer dollars are spent.
As the operator of the oil rig, BP is liable for the costs associated with the oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund which is paid for by oil companies with an 8-cent fee paid on each barrel of oil imported. The legislation also set a cap of $75 million on a company's liability for any cleanup, and limits the Coast Guard's ability to draw up to $100 million from the trust fund for any oil spill.
Most recently, I helped pass S. 3473, which permits the Coast Guard to receive advances from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund as they were nearing the $100 million cap under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Also, I recently helped pass the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, H.R. 4213, which would increase taxpayer protections by raising the fee oil companies pay per barrel and increase the current $1 billion cap on individual claims against the fund to $5 billion, and increase the $500 million cap on natural resource damage assessments to $2.5 billion.
Further, my colleagues and I must conduct a full inquiry of this accident, and seek transparency and answers from BP, Transocean and Halliburton. To do so, we are being briefed by all relevant government agencies and have begun hearings specifically focused on determining the cause of the accident as well as BP's plan to stop the leaks and ensure clean-up efforts are carried out to protect the families, economies, environment and wildlife in coastal communities. Recently, in a House Education and Labor Committee hearing, I further investigated oil industry practices regarding worker health, safety standards, and whistleblower protections. In addition, Congress is examining the technology that allows drilling in difficult offshore conditions, and reforms to governmental agencies with oversight of the oil industry to ensure they are performing the stringent oversight they have been charged with.
As BP and the federal government continue to address the current spill, my colleagues and I must work in a bipartisan manner to do all that we can to ensure that a similar situation does not occur in the future. Further, you may also be interested to know the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing a criminal investigation of events surrounding this disaster.
At the center of our strategy should be an energy policy for the 21st Century that promotes cleaner, safer alternatives to fossil fuels that guard against threats to our wellbeing and natural resources, and improves our national security. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to develop an energy policy that protects the interests of our environment and fits the needs of our economy. Please rest assured that I will continue to closely monitor the effort to control the spill, and will vigilantly work to ensure that we find answers to this oil spill and hold all actors who were responsible accountable for this disaster.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. My office is here to assist you with any and all concerns you have, so please do not hesitate to contact me whenever you feel that I can be of assistance. I encourage you to visit my website at www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I'm doing for you. I am proud to serve the Second District, and I am committed to working hard for Iowans.
Sincerely,
Dave Loebsack Member of Congress
Dave is currently serving his second term in the United States House of Representatives. He represents Iowa’s Second Congressional District which encompasses much of Southeastern Iowa. The fifteen counties included in the Second District are Appanoose, Cedar, Davis, Des Moines, Henry, Jefferson, Johnson, Lee, Linn, Louisa, Muscatine, Van Buren, Wapello, Washington and Wayne. He serves on The House Education and Labor Committee and The House Armed Services Committee.
In the 2nd District contact Dave toll free at 866-914-IOWA
*IBLTV is a group of citizens from the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area who are concerned about the decline in the quality of local television. Fight local media consolidation, as it leads to an unaccountable medium that enriches itself while disregarding the need to serve the public good.
*The rational counter to 'The Point,' 'The Counterpoint' critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television stations across the country
