To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
The Energy Information Administration's (EIA) latest report on federal energy subsidies, released on Monday, underreported direct and indirect federal subsidies to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries, creating an inflated view of the subsidies that benefit renewable energy and efficiency programs, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Although the agency concedes that its methodology failed to account for all subsidies that benefit conventional energy sources, its consistent underreporting over the years has enabled advocates of fossil fuel and nuclear technologies to falsely claim they benefit from very few federal energy subsidies compared with renewable energy technologies.
"Thanks to reporting omissions, the nation's most highly subsidized, polluting industries will be able to use the EIA's flawed analysis to claim they receive far fewer subsidies than emerging, clean energy technologies," said Ellen Vancko, manager of the UCS Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project. "Recent independent analyses show that nothing could be further from the truth."
The problem with the EIA's methodology stems from the fact that the agency adopted a "snapshot" approach to measuring subsidies by only looking at a single year: 2010. By doing that, Vancko pointed out, the agency failed to count the massive federal subsidies that the fossil fuel and nuclear industries have enjoyed for decades--benefits they presumably will continue to receive unless Congress acts to limit them. Conversely, relatively new subsidies for wind and other renewables will only last for a finite period--10 years--after those facilities begin operation.
Most of the support for efficiency and conservation projects, meanwhile, came through stimulus grants. These are one-time bumps in spending, unlikely to be repeated given the fiscal constraints the country now faces. Congress chose the grants as attractive targets for stimulus spending because they were initiated quickly, supported many small scale projects--often at the household level and often by small firms--and resulted in permanent cost-savings for lower-income citizens.
The EIA also failed to count subsidies that are available to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries that they have not as yet utilized.For example, Congress has enacted numerous large new subsidies in recent years, such as loan guarantees and production tax credits, that would especially benefit new coal and nuclear plants, but because these facilities have not yet been built, the EIA did not include the subsidies in its calculations. As a result, the EIA missed the enormous influence these programs have on the economics of new energy investments.
Last year, UCS calculated the benefit of new, uncounted subsidies for new nuclear reactors under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at as much as $5 billion per reactor. Meanwhile, a February 2011 UCS report, "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies," showed that nuclear power has benefitted greatly from subsidies since its inception more than 50 years ago--and the EIA report left them out as well. "Extremely generous existing and new subsidies mask nuclear power's considerable costs and risks," said Vancko, "yet they are not accounted for in EIA's latest report."
This is not the first time that the EIA has produced a flawed analysis. A 2010 report by Doug Koplow of Earth Track, "EIA Energy Subsidy Estimates: A Review of Assumptions and Omissions," for example, identified numerous omissions in the EIA's 2007 federal subsidies report that undercounted billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies to conventional energy sources. Koplow identified a number of problems with the EIA's methodology, ranging from using a limited number of sources to ignoring many energy sector subsidies.
"In combination, problems of estimation and omission in EIA's work render a picture of subsidies that has more to do with the scope and manner of its research than with the actual impact of policies in place," the report concluded. Although Koplow provided the EIA with a list of detailed recommendations to correct these deficiencies, the agency's methodology in its new report closely tracks what it used previously.
"We need to address climate change quickly and in the most cost-effective manner possible," Vancko said. "This requires a logical and economic transition away from carbon-intensive fuels and an accurate accounting of the subsidies provided to all energy sectors. The EIA needs to improve its energy subsidies accounting work if we are to properly evaluate the distortions that existing policies cause. Any future work the EIA carries out on the topic of energy subsidies must be free of political interference, include a systematic and consistent assessment of all types of subsidies over a long period of time, and ensure that the analyses are done with greater transparency and broader public input."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"The financial industry aggressively markets DAFs for uncharitable reasons: advantages as tax avoidance vehicles, especially for complex assets; no payout requirements—and secrecy to donors and grantees alike," said one of the report's authors.
A new report released on this year's philanthropic holiday known as Giving Tuesday details how the "profit motives of the financial services sector have increasingly and disastrously warped how charitable giving functions."
The analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies—titled "Gilded Giving 2024: Saving Philanthropy from Wall Street"—shows how donor-advised funds (DAFs) increasingly serve the economic interests of donors and the Wall Street firms that manage the funds, rather than the interests of nonprofit charities.
Rather than donate to a cause directly, wealthy people have the option to donate to foundations or DAFs, which can be sponsored by for-profit wealth management firms like Fidelity Investments or Charles Schwab. Firms like Fidelity Investments, in turn, benefit from being able to offer this type of service to wealthy clients.
"At last count," according to the report's authors, "DAFs and foundations together take in 35 percent of all individual giving in the U.S." If they continue to grow at the rate they have for the past five years, they're expected to take in half of all individual giving in the country by 2028.
Why is this a problem? For one thing, according to the report, some of the money that's intended for donation is scraped up by the DAFs and foundations, meaning that dollars meant for a cause are diverted elsewhere.
"With each passing year, an additional 2 cents of each dollar donated by individuals is funneled into intermediaries and away from working charities. Assuming that their assets will grow at the same rate they have over the past five years, the assets held in DAFs and foundations will eclipse $2 trillion by 2026," according to the report's authors.
What's more, there is no requirement that DAFs disburse their assets, according to the report's authors—meaning there's no guarantee the money is given to charity, and in practice the money in these accounts tends to move slowly, often generating gains instead of being dispersed.
DAFs also facilitate anonymous giving, because donations from them need only be credited to their sponsors, not the original person directing the contribution, according to Inequality.org, a project of IPS.
The report's authors argue that DAFs are part of a wider “wealth defense industry” — tax lawyers, accountants, and wealth managers whose interests are more geared towards helping their clients increase assets, minimize taxes, maximize wealth transfer to descendants, and net some of those assets for themselves in the form of fees, as opposed to supporting charitable causes.
DAFS are used strategically in this way, for example, by giving donors the ability to dispose of noncash assets, according to the report. In practice, this means that DAF donors can give stocks, real estate and other noncash assets directly to DAFS when markets are doing well, meaning they are able to get income tax deductions from their contribution while side stepping paying capital gains tax on appreciation of those assets.
"The financial industry aggressively markets DAFs for uncharitable reasons: advantages as tax avoidance vehicles, especially for complex assets; no payout requirements—and secrecy to donors and grantees alike," said Chuck Collins, co-author of the report and director of the Charity Reform Initiative at IPS.
Other key insights from the study include:
"This rule would be a major win for the privacy rights of Americans and is the kind of bipartisan, commonsense action that should be protected and encouraged by politicians in both parties."
Considering billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's concerns about data privacy, advocates on Tuesday suggested he should welcome the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's newly proposed rule that would stop data brokers from selling people's personal information.
"But they can't do it if you 'delete CFPB,'" grassroots group Demand Progress warned Musk in a post on social media, referring to his remark last week that the bureau is one of the "duplicative regulatory agencies" that he plans to dismantle as the head of a proposed government agency under President-elect Donald Trump.
Demand Progress applauded CFPB Director Rohit Chopra's announcement on Tuesday of a proposed rule that would limit the sale of personal information like Social Security numbers and phone numbers to ensure data brokers don't sell sensitive data to scammers.
Under the rule, the CFPB would clarify that when data brokers sell certain consumer data they are acting as "consumer reporting agencies" as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which requires them to comply with accuracy requirements and maintain safeguards.
"Until now," said Demand Progress, "data brokers have been able to sell our personal information to the highest bidder—including scammers, blackmailers, and stalkers."
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director for Demand Progress Education Fund, said the agency "should be applauded for standing up to data brokers and working to rein in the sale of sensitive information about us, which can also end up in the hands of foreign governments."
"This groundbreaking rule offers a needed solution for Americans who are sick and tired of being inundated by scam texts, calls, and emails—often from fraudsters who have been able to buy our data for mere pennies," said Peterson-Cassin. "If finalized, this rule would be a major win for the privacy rights of Americans and is the kind of bipartisan, commonsense action that should be protected and encouraged by politicians in both parties."
Demand Progress was also among the groups that tied the announcement to a recent comment by Musk about a report that data brokers sell data about military personnel to unknown buyers for as little as 12 cents.
Musk called the report "concerning" in a Nov. 17 post on X.
"Good news, Elon!" said the organization, informing him of the proposed rule—before warning that Musk's own plan to gut the CFPB would embolden the very data brokers he expressed concern about.
"Guess which federal agency just proposed a rule cracking down on those data brokers selling the data of U.S. military personnel?" added the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The CFPB said its proposal would also address other "critical threats from current data broker practices," including:
The CFPB introduced the rule after finding that "data brokers routinely sidestep the FCRA by claiming they aren't subject to its requirements."
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who for years has called on the CFPB to address the threats of data brokers, toldThe Washington Post that he has concerns the rule won't go into effect once Trump takes office.
"Unfortunately," said Wyden, "it will be up to Trump's CFPB to finalize this."
Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate for Public Citizen, said the proposed protections would protect Americans from the $250 billion-per-year data sales business.
"All of us leave our financial fingerprints everywhere, every day, between credit card swipes, internet communications, and more. Thieves, loan sharks, stalkers, even foreign espionage agents can exploit gaping holes in credit reporting enforcement that the CFPB is rightly proposing to repair," said Naylor.
"A Republican-led congressional committee investigated this last year, a reminder that this isn't a partisan issue," Naylor added. "No one should side with data predators."
"Elon Musk's commission is a plot to destroy our Social Security by giving it to Wall Street executives—so that you get nothing and they get everything," warned one advocate.
A lengthy series of X posts attacking Social Security as a "nightmare" caught the attention of the platform's mega-billionaire owner, Elon Musk, who could soon take aim at the beloved New Deal program as co-chair of an advisory commission tasked with identifying federal spending to slash.
"Interesting thread," Musk, the world's richest man, wrote late Monday in response to the posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to pull Social Security "up by the roots and get rid of it," along with Medicare and Medicaid.
In his new thread, Lee characterized Social Security—which lifts more Americans above the poverty line than any other federal program—as a "tax plan" insidiously disguised as a retirement plan and condemned the Social Security Act of 1935 as one of many "deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people."
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), replied Tuesday that Lee's posts amount to "a misrepresentation of Social Security's history and how the program works."
"There is nothing deceptive about Social Security. The social insurance program has been working just fine for nearly 90 years and has never missed a payment," said Richtman. "The kind of propaganda Sen. Lee posted undermines public support for Social Security, making it easier to cut or privatize the program. It is perhaps no coincidence that Sen. Lee's second-biggest campaign contributor by industry is the securities and investment sector."
"The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."
Lee also claimed the federal government "routinely raids" the Social Security Trust Fund—a longstanding and misleading right-wing talking point.
Social Security Works (SSW), a progressive advocacy group, said Tuesday that by amplifying Lee's thread to his hundreds of millions of followers, Musk "just declared war on Social Security."
"For 89 years, through war and peace, boom time and bust, health and pandemics, Social Security has never missed a single payment," said Alex Lawson, SSW's executive director. "Compared to the risky alternatives on Wall Street, Social Security is a rock of retirement security. If billionaires like Elon Musk paid into Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us on all of their income, we could expand benefits for everyone and pay them in full forever."
"This is a declaration of war against seniors, people with disabilities, and the American public," Lawson said. "The Republicans are coming for your Social Security, which they call a 'nightmare.' Elon Musk's commission is a plot to destroy our Social Security by giving it to Wall Street executives—so that you get nothing and they get everything."
"We've seen this play again and again," he added. "When Republicans destroyed defined-benefit pension plans, they claimed that the market would be able to create amazing returns for everybody. Instead, workers got pennies, while Wall Street managers got billions. That is always the plan. We will defeat this Republican effort to steal our earned benefits. The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly denounced Lee's thread and Musk's promotion of it, saying both "should enrage and concern every single American who has contributed to Social Security."
"Sen. Mike Lee has dreamed about 'phasing out Social Security' and the benefits generations of Americans have earned for more than a decade. His bad ideas have been rightfully ignored but last night he got a big assist from Elon Musk, who amplified Lee's wrongheaded views about Social Security on X."
"Social Security is a solemn promise between the American people and the government," Fiesta continued. "We pay for Social Security's guaranteed benefits with every paycheck and expect them to be there when we retire, lose a spouse or parent, or become disabled. No one voted to phase out Social Security or let Wall Street gamble with their earned benefits. Older Americans will rightly punish any politician who tries to cut their benefits or gut the system that has worked for generations."
On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump pledged to defend Social Security while simultaneously pushing proposals that would wreck the program's finances.
Many Republican lawmakers, who are soon to be in the majority in both chambers of Congress, have called for raising the Social Security retirement age—a change that would cut benefits across the board. On Tuesday, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) toldFox Business Network that "we're going to have to have some hard decisions" on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare—a euphemism for benefit cuts.
Richtman of NCPSSM said that the kind of attack advanced by Lee and other Republicans "conflicts with President Trump's promise not to tamper with Americans' earned benefits."
"It signals where Trump's MAGA allies in Congress are heading—toward privatization and benefit cuts, something the majority of Americans across party lines say they do not want," Richtman added.