August, 27 2010, 12:55pm EDT
Court Ruling: Los Angeles Clean Truck Program Legally Sound
Industry Attacks to Derail Clean Air Program Defeated; Port Programs Nationwide Given Greenlight
LOS ANGELES
The U.S. District Court upheld the legality of the Port of Los
Angeles' Clean Truck Program yesterday, which the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) intervened on behalf of itself, the Sierra Club
and Coalition for Clean Air to protect. The ruling enforces key safety
elements and protects core aspects of the program allowing the port to
require trucking companies to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining
their own truck fleet rather than leaving the burden on the underpaid
drivers.
"This victory bolsters the standing of burgeoning clean port
programs across the nation," said Melissa Lin Perrella, senior attorney
with NRDC's Southern California Air Program. "Millions of people live in
port communities across the country and are forced to subsidize the
operations of outdated port operations with their lungs. This decision
allows the Port of Los Angeles to continue introducing cleaner trucks
while getting dirty ones off the road and sets the stage for healthier
communities nationwide."
A recent report
from the American Lung Association found that the port communities of
Los Angeles and Long Beach continue to rank the worst in the country for
ozone (smog) and particulate matter exposure, two air pollutants
generated by diesel trucks.
"It's essential we sustain the clean air achievements of LA's
clean truck program," said David Pettit, senior attorney and director
of NRDC's Southern California Air Program. "Without regular truck
maintenance, the region will be back at square one in terms of air
pollution attributed to diesel trucks and port residents can't afford
that."
The Clean Truck Program is designed to significantly reduce
truck-related emissions and to manage and maintain these trucks for the
long-term. Ports around the country recognize the need for a sustainable
trucking workforce and are mobilizing to implement clean truck programs
locally. Today's decision stems from litigation brought in July 2008 by
the American Trucking Associations (ATA) against the ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach.
Background
Since October 1, 2008, the Los Angeles Clean Truck Program
has significantly reduced air pollution at the ports and in communities
along freight transportation corridors by nearly 80 percent, a goal the
Port of Los Angeles planned to achieve by 2012.
Los Angeles's Clean Truck Program is part of a larger Clean
Air Action Plan (CAAP) adopted in 2006 to clean up diesel pollution from
Port-serving trucks, ships, trains, tug boats and other equipment. The
CAAP seeks to expand the ports' business operations and also reduce
harmful air pollution impacts on the local port community and
environment. The trucking fleet was included in the CAAP because the
"independent owner-operator" trucking system that had evolved after
trucking was deregulated in the 1990's resulted in a fleet of nearly
17,000 dirty trucks serving the ports.
To fix this problem, the Port enacted a "concession" program
that made the trucking companies (licensed motor carriers) responsible
for truck maintenance through adherence to provisions within a
concession agreement. An estimated $1.6 billion has been invested to
replace an aging truck fleet with newer, cleaner vehicles at the ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach before 2012. The Port of Los Angeles put
up millions of dollars in incentives to help trucking companies
transition to clean trucks. Many trucking companies at the port took
advantage of these incentives, but the ATA filed suit, claiming that the
concession agreement that is the heart of the Clean Truck Program
violates federal law.
The ATA tried, but failed, to have provisions within the
port's concession agreement thrown out on legal grounds under the
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which restricts, in
some circumstances, local governments from regulating the prices, routes
or services of trucking companies. ATA also brought, and lost, a claim
under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
Legislation introduced last month by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler
(D-NY) entitled the Clean Ports Act 2010, seeks to reduce truck-borne
pollution in and around our nation's shipping ports. The federal
legislation will protect port authority to implement clean truck
programs across the country, and safeguard the results of Judge Snyder's
ruling.
In addition to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port of Oakland have
adopted clean truck programs designed to phase out the dirtiest diesel
trucks. Mayors Michael Bloomberg (NY), Cory Booker (Newark), Ron Dellums
(Oakland), Mike McGinn (Seattle) and Stacy Ritter (Broward County, FL)
seek to emulate Los Angeles's comprehensive strategy as part of their
efforts to create green jobs, protect public health and spur economic
development.
Relevant Links:
4/29/2009 - SoCal Ports' Clean Truck Plans Overcome Court Challenge
Read David Pettit's blog on port air pollution: https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dpettit/
Read Melissa Lin Perrella's blog at: https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mlinperrella/
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Why Can't We Fund Universal Public Goods? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire Nepo Babies
"In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta," reads a new report.
Dec 13, 2024
The children of the richest families in the U.S. are well-known for spending their vast wealth on frivolous luxuries—constructing a replica of a medieval church on their acres of property, in the case of banking heir Timothy Mellon, or starting a brand of T-shirts described by one critic as "terrible beyond your wildest imagination," as Wyatt Koch, nephew of Republican megadonors Charles and David, did.
But a report released by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) on Thursday shows how "billionaire nepo babies" don't just waste their families' fortunes. They also benefit from "a rigged system" that allows them to "pass that wealth down over generations without being properly taxed–often without being taxed at all."
In addition, the heirs of the country's biggest fortunes spend vast sums "to elect politicians who protect their unearned wealth and manipulate the country's economy in their favor," said ATF.
Along with Mellon and Koch, the report profiles Samuel Logan of the Scripps media dynasty; Nicola Peltz-Beckham, daughter of billionaire investor Nelson Peltz; Gabrielle Rubenstein, whose family has made its fortune in private equity; and President-elect Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump.
The nepo babies are part of a small group of billionaire families in the U.S. who benefit from tax loopholes that ensure little of their immense wealth ever goes to benefit the public good.
At least 90 billionaires have passed away over the last decade, leaving their beneficiaries $455 billion in collective wealth.
But according to ATF, "$255 billion (56%) of that amount was likely entirely exempt from the capital gains tax because of a special break called 'stepped up basis.'"
"Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations."
Without loopholes included the stepped up basis tax cut, the current estate tax on billionaires and centimillionaires would yield enough revenue to fund universal childcare, preschool, and paid family leave for U.S. workers, with hundreds of billions of dollars left over, according to ATF's report.
The wealthy heirs profiled in the report and their families are some of the Republican Party's top donors—contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to candidates including Trump in the hopes of securing even more tax cuts.
Mellon, for example, is Trump's "biggest supporter, giving $140 million to a pro-Trump PAC in 2024 alone," reads the report.
A previous analysis by ATF found that as of late October, just 150 billionaire families had spent $1.9 billion on the 2024 elections.
As the Center for American Progress found earlier this year, Trump's plan to extend the tax cuts that he pushed through in 2017 would cost $4 trillion over the next decade.
"The vast wealth inherited by centuries-old billionaire families is staggering. While these heirs and their billions go undertaxed, enormous sums are squandered on lavish mansions, private jets, and vanity projects instead of funding crucial public investments," said ATF executive director David Kass. "In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta. Now, Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations—all while advocating for cuts to vital programs that working and middle-class Americans depend on."
The report calls for Congress to pass "proven, pragmatic proposals to unrig the tax system that enjoy high levels of popular support," such as the Ultra Millionaire Tax Act that was proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) this year. The bill would tax fortunes between $50 million and $1 billion at 2% and wealth above $1 billion at $1 billion.
The small tax on enormous wealth would generate "a whopping $3 trillion over 10 years," said ATF.
The estate tax could also be "restored so that it can play a meaningful role in promoting fairness and equal opportunities" through the passage of the For the 99.5% Act, which was introduced in 2023 by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.).
Under the bill, the estate tax exemption would be lowered to $7 million per couple and the current 40% flat rate would be replaced with a sliding scale that would charge higher rates as a family's wealth grows.
"None of these tax reforms would impoverish the ultra wealthy, nor even inconvenience them in any meaningful way–but they would reduce the concentration of wealth that is so corrosive to society," reads the report. "At the same time, they would raise trillions of dollars that could be used to reduce inequality and improve the lives of families that can only dream of the kind of security and opportunity enjoyed by the nation’s richest clans."
"And if rich families ever did need to tighten their belts a bit to pay their taxes," the report continues, "the economizing might begin by reducing the flow of money funding the extravagant lifestyles of America's Billionaire Nepo Babies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Next Recession Starts Here': Trump Team Weighs Abolishing Bank Regulators
The president-elect's advisers are reportedly discussing plans to shrink or eliminate key bank watchdogs, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Dec 13, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers are reportedly considering plans to weaken—or abolish altogether—top bank regulators, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
The Wall Street Journalreported Thursday that members of Trump's transition team and the new Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency have asked nominees under consideration to head the FDIC and OCC if the bank watchdogs could be eliminated and have their functions absorbed by the Treasury Department, which is set to be run by a billionaire hedge fund manager and crypto enthusiast.
"Bank executives are optimistic President-elect Donald Trump will ease a host of regulations on capital cushions and consumer protections, as well as scrutiny of consolidation in the industry," the Journal reported. "But FDIC deposit insurance is considered near sacred. Any move that threatened to undermine even the perception of deposit insurance could quickly ripple through banks and in a crisis might compound customer fears."
The Trump team's internal and fluid discussions about the fate of the key bank regulators broadly aligns with Project 2025's proposal to "merge the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Reserve's non-monetary supervisory and regulatory functions."
The FDIC, which is primarily funded by bank insurance premiums, was established during the Great Depression to restore public trust in the nation's banking system, and the agency played a central role in navigating the 2023 bank failures that threatened a systemic crisis.
Observers warned that gutting the FDIC and OCC could catalyze another economic meltdown.
"The next recession starts here," tech journalist Jacob Silverman warned in response to the Journal's reporting.
Eric Rauchway, a historian of the New Deal, wrote that "even Milton Friedman appreciated the FDIC," underscoring the extreme nature of the incoming Trump administration's deregulatory ambitions.
Musk, the world's wealthiest man, is also pushing for the elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
The Journal noted Thursday that "Rep. Andy Barr, a Republican from Kentucky and Trump ally on the House Financial Services Committee, has backed the plan to eliminate or drastically alter the CFPB and said he wants to get rid of what he calls 'one-size-fits-all' regulation for banks."
Barr has received millions of dollars in campaign donations from the financial sector and "introduced many pieces of pro-industry legislation, including significant rollbacks of protections stemming from the 2008 financial crisis," according to the watchdog group Accountable.US.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Chief Warns of Israel's Syria Invasion and Land Seizures
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the "urgent need" for Israel to "de-escalate violence on all fronts."
Dec 12, 2024
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Thursday that he is "deeply concerned" by Israel's "recent and extensive violations of Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity," including a ground invasion and airstrikes carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in the war-torn Mideastern nation.
Guterres "is particularly concerned over the hundreds of Israeli airstrikes on several locations in Syria" and has stressed the "urgent need to de-escalate violence on all fronts throughout the country," said U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric.
Israel claims its invasion and bombardment of Syria—which come as the United States and Turkey have also violated Syrian sovereignty with air and ground attacks—are meant to create a security buffer along the countries' shared border in the wake of last week's fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and amid the IDF's ongoing assault on Gaza, which has killed or wounded more than 162,000 Palestinians and is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case.
While Israel argues that its invasion of Syria does not violate a 1974 armistice agreement between the two countries because the Assad dynasty no longer rules the neighboring nation, Dujarric said Guterres maintains that Israel must uphold its obligations under the deal, "including by ending all unauthorized presence in the area of separation and refraining from any action that would undermine the cease-fire and stability in Golan."
Israel conquered the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights in 1967 and has illegally occupied it ever since, annexing the seized lands in 1981.
Other countries including France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia have criticized Israel's invasion, while the United States defended the move.
"The Syrian army abandoned its positions in the area... which potentially creates a vacuum that could have been filled by terrorist organizations," U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said at a press briefing earlier this week. "Israel has said that these actions are temporary to defend its borders. These are not permanent actions... We support all sides upholding the 1974 disengagement agreement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular