December, 04 2009, 03:24pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lee Farris, Estate Tax Policy Coordinator 617-423-2148 x133, lfarris@faireconomy.org
Brian Miller, Executive Director 617-423-2148 x111, bmiller@faireconomy.org
Stronger Estate Tax Urged by United for a Fair Economy in Response to House Vote
BOSTON, Mass
"More tax breaks for the super wealthy is one of the last things our economy needs right now," says Lee Farris, Estate Tax Policy Coordinator for United for a Fair Economy (UFE). "Back in 2001, the Bush Administration enacted a massive tax cut for multi-millionaires by gradually reducing the estate tax over several years. Now, instead of reversing at least part of this damaging Bush tax break, the House voted to make that cut permanent."
Yesterday, the US House of Representatives cast a 225-200 vote in favor of Rep. Earl Pomeroy's estate tax proposal, which makes 2009 estate tax law permanent, with a $3.5 million exemption ($7 million for married couples), and a 45% tax rate. If no vote were taken, the estate tax would have gone to zero in 2010, then reverted back to pre-2001 levels in 2011. Making the 2009 law permanent would result in a loss of $234 billion over the next 10 years.
Brian Miller, UFE's Executive Director adds, "The House vote is a mixed blessing. It's clearly a good thing that the House recognizes the need for an estate tax. However, making the 2009 law permanent amounts to a huge tax giveaway to the super wealthy at a time that our nation has much more pressing needs for that revenue, such as paying for health care and reducing the deficit."
"We urge the Senate to not give even more tax breaks to the wealthy than the House passed on Thursday," says Farris. "There's still time to pass a stronger estate tax. The Senate should pass a one-year extension of 2009 law before the end of this year, so Congress has time for a more meaningful debate of this issue next year."
UFE continues to support Rep. Jim McDermott's Sensible Estate Tax Act, HR 2023, which represents a middle ground between the 2009 and pre-2001 laws; the bill would raise $31 billion more in federal revenue over 10 years than the House bill, while improving the tax by indexing it for inflation and rebating money to the states.
United for a Fair Economy challenges the concentration of wealth and power that corrupts democracy, deepens the racial divide and tears communities apart. We use popular economics education, trainings, and creative communications to support social movements working for a resilient, sustainable and equitable economy. United for a Fair Economy believes another world is possible. We envision a global society which respects the humanity, rights, and creativity of all people.
LATEST NEWS
Relying on Carbon Capture and Storage Could Unleash 'Carbon Bomb'
"We need to cut through the smoke and mirrors of 'abated' fossil and keep our eyes fixed on the goal of 1.5°C," said a co-author of a new analysis.
Dec 05, 2023
While the United Nations climate summit continued in the Middle East, researchers in Germany warned Tuesday that depending on technology to trap and sequester planet-heating pollution could unleash a "carbon bomb" in the decades ahead.
Specifically, the new briefing from the Berlin-based think thank Climate Analytics states that reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS) could release an extra 86 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere between 2020 and 2050.
"The climate talks at COP28 have centered around the need for a fossil fuel phaseout," the publication notes, referring to the United Arab Emirates-hosted U.N. conference. "But some are calling for this to be limited to 'unabated' fossil fuels."
"The term 'abated' is being used as a Trojan horse to allow fossil fuels with dismal capture rates to count as climate action."
Over 100 countries at COP28 support calling for "accelerating efforts toward phasing out unabated fossil fuels," or operations that don't involve technological interventions such as CCS," as Common Dreamsreported earlier Tuesday.
The new briefing highlights the risks of targeting only unabated fossil fuels. Contrary to claims that significant oil and gas consumption can continue thanks to new tech, it says, "pathways that achieve the Paris agreement's 1.5°C limit in a sustainable manner show a near complete phaseout of fossil fuels by around 2050 and rely to a very limited degree, if at all, on fossil CCS."
Additionally, "there is no agreed definition of the concept of abatement," and "a weak definition of 'abated'—or even no definition at all—could allow poorly performing fossil CCS projects to be classed as abated," the document explains. The report's authors suggest that the focus on unabated fossil fuels is driven by polluters who want to keep cashing in on wrecking the planet.
"The term 'abated' is being used as a Trojan horse to allow fossil fuels with dismal capture rates to count as climate action," declared report co-author Claire Fyson. "'Abated' may sound like harmless jargon, but it's actually language deliberately engineered and heavily promoted by the oil and gas industry to create the illusion we can keep expanding fossil fuels."
Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare, who also contributed to the document, said that "the false promises of 'abated' fossil fuels risks climate finance being funneled to fossil projects, particularly oil and gas, and will greenwash the 'unabatable' emissions from their final use, which account for 90% of fossil oil and gas emissions."
Report co-author Neil Grant stressed that "we need to cut through the smoke and mirrors of 'abated' fossil and keep our eyes fixed on the goal of 1.5°C. That means slashing fossil fuel production by around 40% this decade, and a near complete phaseout of fossil fuels by around 2050."
As a Tuesday analysis from the Civil Society Equity Review details, a "fair" phaseout by mid-century would involve rich nations ditching oil and gas faster than poor countries, and the former pouring billions of dollars into helping the latter. The United States, for example, should end fossil fuel use by 2031 and contribute $97.1 billion per year toward the global energy transition.
The United States is putting money toward what critics call "false solutions" like carbon capture, and it is not alone. An Oil Change International (OCI) report from last week notes that "governments have spent over $20 billion—and have legislated or announced policies that could spend up to $200 billion more—of public money on CCS, providing a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry."
OCI found that rather than permanently sequestering carbon dioxide, 79% of the global CCS capacity sends captured CO2 to stimulate oil production in aging wells, which is called "enhanced oil recovery." The group also reviewed six leading plants in the United States, Australia, and the Middle East, and concluded that they "overpromise and underdeliver, operating far below capacity."
Lorne Stockman, OCI's research director, asserted last week that "governments need to stop pretending that fossil fuels aren't the problem. Instead of throwing a multibillion-dollar lifeline to the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars, they should fund real climate solutions, including renewable energy and energy efficiency. Fossil fuel phaseout must be the central theme of COP28, not dangerous distractions like CCS propped up with public money."
Underscoring Stockman's point that such projects are incredibly expensive, the University of Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment on Monday published research showing that a high carbon capture and storage pathway to net-zero emissions in 2050 could cost at least $30 trillion more than a low CCS pathway.
"Relying on mass deployment of CCS to facilitate high ongoing use of fossil fuels would cost society around a trillion dollars extra each year—it would be highly economically damaging," said Rupert Way, an honorary research associate at the school.
"Any hopes that the cost of CCS will decline in a similar way to renewable technologies like solar and batteries appear misplaced," he added. "Our findings indicate a lack of technological learning in any part of the process, from CO2 capture to burial, even though all elements of the chain have been in use for decades."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Post-Dobbs Bans Leave 14 States With No Abortion Clinics
A new analysis shows how "abortion bans, extremist harassment, and the financial realities of operating community-based clinics make it increasingly difficult for independent clinics to stay open."
Dec 05, 2023
Scores of independent reproductive health centers have been forced to close or stop offering abortion care, with 14 states now having no abortion clinics, a report published Tuesday revealed.
Abortion Care Network (ACN) released its annual Communities Need Clinics report, which details how "abortion bans, extremist harassment, and the financial realities of operating community-based clinics make it increasingly difficult for independent clinics to stay open" after the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court canceled half a century of federal abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization a year-and-a-half ago.
As a result, 65 independent reproductive care clinics have shut down or stopped performing abortions since June 2022. The following states now have no clinics providing abortion care: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
"Even in states where abortion remains legal, medically unnecessary restrictions, financial barriers associated with operating a health center, and the constant work of protecting against anti-abortion extremism make it challenging for many clinics to keep their doors open at all," the report states.
While there are several reasons for these closures, the overturning of Roe v. Wade and subsequent flood of anti-abortion legislation in Republican-controlled states are the most common. The report notes that this year alone, 53 laws restricting abortion access have been passed across the country.
However, the publication highlights how "voters resoundingly reject efforts to ban abortion":
In 2022, Kansas voters rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment that would say there is no right to abortion in the Kansas state Constitution. The vote prevented further restrictions on abortion in a state with only six brick-and-mortar abortion clinics. Winning by nearly 60% of the vote, the decisive election came as a surprise to many. In Kansas, registered Republican voters outnumber Democrats, but support for abortion cuts across party affiliation. States with other severe abortion restrictions surround Kansas, making it an important safeguard for access in the region. The vote in Kansas was the first time voters had the opportunity to vote on abortion access since Roe was overturned and became a bellwether for other states, including Kentucky, Montana, Michigan, Vermont, California, and Ohio—all states in which ballot initiatives confirmed popular support for abortion.
"States that restrict abortion access also have some of the worst reproductive health outcomes—and yet, despite these overlapping conditions and political hostilities, communities have made themselves clear: In every state where abortion was on the ballot, voters showed up to defend access to abortion," ACN co-executive director Erin Grant said in a statement.
Julie Burkhart, the founder and president of Wellspring Health Access and co-owner of Hope Clinic, asserted that "not only do independent abortion clinics provide the majority of abortions in the U.S., we also play a crucial role in protecting and defending reproductive rights by challenging abortion restrictions in the courts."
"In Wyoming, Wellspring Health Access and the patients we serve were nearly written off because of misperceptions of support for abortion in the state," Burkhart continued. "But, along with five co-plaintiffs, we brought a lawsuit challenging the state's recent abortion bans, that has ultimately reinstated abortion access in Wyoming."
Robin Marty, executive director of the West Alabama Women's Center, said that "when abortion was banned in Alabama, we understood that our community needed us more now, not less."
"Just as independent clinics were the vast majority of abortion providers in Alabama prior to Dobbs, we are staying here despite the strictest ban in the nation—providing follow-up care to those who leave the state or self-manage at home, as well as prenatal, contraceptive, and gender-affirming healthcare services, too."
"And when we eventually win back the right to an abortion—and someday we will do just that—we will be here, ready to offer that, too, at the very moment it is legally allowed," Marty added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
​'Shameful': Norwegian Government Backs Deep-Sea Mining
"By opening up for deep-sea mining, Norway has lost all credibility as a responsible ocean nation that signed the United Nations ocean treaty," said one campaigner.
Dec 05, 2023
Environmental protection groups on Tuesday warned that the Norwegian government's new deal with two right-wing minority parties to open the Arctic Ocean to deep-sea mining would be "a disaster" and flies in the face of warnings from scientists about companies' exploration of the seabed.
The Labor and Center Parties, which have control of the government, reached an agreement with the right-wing Hoeyre and Progress Parties to allow Stortinget, the Norwegian parliament, to approve the first projects by deep-sea mining firms such as Loke Marine Minerals.
The plan would gradually open areas of the Greenland and Barents seas in the Arctic, and proponents claimed it would set strict environmental survey requirements. The proposal is set to be formally debated by the Stortinget on January 4, followed by a vote.
Despite the promises of environmental protections, Greenpeace Norway said the government cannot claim to know "what consequences this will have for the ecosystems in the sea, for endangered species such as whales and seabirds, or for the fish stocks on which we base our livelihood."
Norway is "giving up any pretense of being an environmental leader" by embracing deep-sea mining, said the group.
The European Academies Science Advisory Council in August said the push to extract metals like cobalt and copper from the fragile seabed—ostensibly to support the production of batteries for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and other products—is "misleading" and could cause "irreparable damage" ecosystems where thousands of newly discovered species live.
The minerals are already mined elsewhere on Earth, scientists have pointed out, and the deep sea could be placed at risk for chemical leaks and spills as well as harmful noise and light pollution.
More than 800 marine scientists have called for a global moratorium on deep-sea mining, and 119 members of the European Parliament have called on Norwegian lawmakers to reject the proposed opening process.
Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway, called Tuesday's proposal "shameful" for the country.
"The Norwegian government is not only ignoring hundreds of concerned scientists, but also showing disregard for its international obligations and national environmental legislation," said Pleym. "By opening up for deep-sea mining, Norway has lost all credibility as a responsible ocean nation that signed the United Nations ocean treaty."
Martin Sveinssønn Melvær of the Bellona environmental group in Norway said it would be "a dangerous derailment in the fight against climate change to open up seabed minerals."
Pleym pledged that the fight against deep-sea mining in Norway "doesn't end here."
"Across the Greenpeace network, we will work to stop every deep-sea mining project presented to the Norwegian parliament," he said. "The wave of protests against deep-sea mining has just started to grow... We will not allow Norway to destroy the unique life in the deep sea, not in the Arctic nor anywhere else."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular