From the Dispatch

Wage Theft by Employers Surging in Wake of Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law, Even as Judge Blocks Implementation of Key Provisions

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:44:07 -0400

The Arizona Interfaith Alliance for Worker Justice, a worker center in Phoenix, has seen a “huge spike” in wage theft -- violations of minimum wage laws -- since the passage of SB 1070, Arizona’s anti-immigrant law. "Employers are even more brazen in their mistreatment of workers," said Executive Director Trina Zelle in an interview with In These Times. "Increasingly, 'Go ahead, try and make me pay you' is the response workers hear when they confront their employers over unpaid wages."

Workers' rights organizers report that the law's passage in April has already begun to drive immigrant workers even further underground, effectively silencing them in the face of rampant workplace rights violations. The irony is that this makes undocumented immigrants an even more attractive workforce for unscrupulous employers, who know they can illegally underpay them without fear of those employees reporting them or taking them to court. “If we ever hope to bring immigrant workers out of the shadows in which they’ve been laboring,” says Kim Bobo, Executive Director of Interfaith Worker Justice, “we need to forcefully oppose anti-immigrant legislation and stand up for both comprehensive immigration reform and vigorous enforcement of the nation’s labor laws.”

Progressive States Network's model legislation for wage law enforcement outlines how wage enforcement campaigns can counter anti-immigrant rhetoric by raising wage standards for all workers and uniting native and immigrant communities to oppose unscrupulous employers.

Judge Strikes Down Worst Provisions of SB 1070: Yesterday, a federal judge struck down key provisions of SB 1070 as likely violating federal law or being unconstitutional, reinvigorating hope among immigrant communities that state anti-immigrant laws will fail to gain traction. Key provisions that were blocked include:

Requiring police officers to investigate the immigration status of individuals they stop who they suspect are undocumented;
Mandatory detention of individuals who are arrested if they cannot verify they are authorized to be in the U.S.;
Imposing state criminal penalties on non-citizens who fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security or failing to carry registration documents;
Warrantless arrests of individuals who are deemed by state or local police officers to be "removable" from the U.S.; and,
State statutes that make it a crime for alleged undocumented immigrants to work.

The initial court injunction will be followed by a full hearing to determine whether these provisions, as well as the law's other troubling components, will be permanently struck down. The ruling echoes numerous other legal decisions that struck down broad state anti-immigrant laws - and should serve as a warning to other states that enacting copycat legislation similar to Arizona's will lead to costly legal proceedings and, as discussed above, only serve to empower unscrupulous employers to violate wage laws.

Resources:
Working In These Times - ‘Go Ahead, Try and Make Me Pay You’: Wage Theft and SB 1070
Progressive States Network - Promoting Wage Law Enforcement Policies in 2010
Interfaith Worker Justice - Thou Shalt Not Steal - A Toolkit on Wage Theft
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - Court Blocks Implementation of Key Sections of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law
National Employment Law Project (NELP) - Enforcement of Workplace Standards

Extended Unemployment Benefits Approved by Feds

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:10:43 -0400

Extended Unemployment Benefits Approved by Feds - But Debates Continue on Raiding Already Approved Recovery Funds

This week, the U.S. Senate finally broke a filibuster by conservatives to approve an extension of unemployment insurance (UI) for 2.5 million people who lost their benefits when the program expired last month. The House is expected to approve the bill today, which extends the program through November, offering the long-term unemployed up to 99 weeks of aid and making benefits retroactive to June 2 when the program expired.

However, UI is only one part of job creation. Congress is currently considering further aid for state programs such as schools and Medicaid. Many opponents of state fiscal relief continue to demand that the government rescind other recovery funds to pay for programs, effectively calling for the firing of one set of workers to promote employment and services for other groups. Furthermore, it is quite telling that right-wing representatives who are purportedly concerned with the deficit, took issue with how the government would pay for the UI extension, but desire to maintain the Bush tax cuts, which are major sources of the long-term deficit and as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates, "will continue to harm the budget outlook throughout the next decade."

Robbing Broadband to Pay for Schools: Just this month, for example, the House approved an Appropriations Committee amendment to the supplemental war bill that would have added funds to avoid massive teacher layoffs along with funding for expanded Pell Grants, the Gulf Oil Spill, and other programs, but paid for this aid through $11.7 billion in cuts in other programs. With inflated deficit hysteria poisoning the debate, the amendment cut funding for a special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, some other education programs, and cut over $700 million from key broadband and technological investments allotted in the Recovery Act, including $602 million the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce for broadband grants, $112 million in funding for digital television, and $15 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) construction. Several advocates are concerned that a loss of crucial funding for broadband will compromise economic development, growth, and access provisions to un-served and under-served areas of the country. On top of that, due to current state budget shortfalls, ARRA broadband investments are the only direct source of funding states have at their disposal to improve and expand high-speed Internet access.

Jobs Now, Plan for Deficit Reduction Later: With unemployment hovering at 10 percent, most economic experts see the focus on short-term deficits as misguided and dangerous, since, if anything, we need more immediate spending to create jobs, not less. As Lawrence Mishel, the president of the Economic Policy Institute, and David Walker, the president and CEO of the anti-deficit Peter G. Peterson Foundation, relate jointly in a recent article, the nation can effectively engage in planning for long-term deficit reduction even as we run short-term deficits to create jobs that promote systematic federal investments in public structures, education, and benefits for the long-term unemployed as a means to spur recovery and future fiscal stability:

A focus on jobs now is consistent with addressing our deficit problems ahead... We must accept higher deficits in the short-term in order to put people back to work. At the same time, we must take immediate steps to agree on a path and a process for reducing the structural deficits that lie ahead.

Cutting short-term recovery dollars now does little or nothing to deal with long-term structural deficits and not definitively moving on necessary job creation measures can prolong economic pain and likely make those long-term deficits worse. So as Mishel, Walker and a range of other experts emphasize, the short-term spending cuts suddenly being debated in Congress are a distraction from both immediate economic recovery and from any genuine debate on long-term deficit reduction.

Resources:
Committee on Appropriations - House Consideration of the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act: Amendment on Fully Offset Education
Education Week - Some State Officials Worried About Race to Top Cut
Lawrence Mishel and David Walker - Address Jobs Now and Deficits Later
Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel - Obey Pushing for $10 Billion to Save Teacher Jobs
Progressive States Network - Broadband and Recovery
Stimulating Broadband - Alert: House Appropriations Cuts $602 Million from Broadband Stimulus
United States Senate - Bayh Letter to Inouye

Clean Energy Options: In the Wake of the Oil Spill, Energy Alternatives That Will Create Jobs

Fabiola Carrion — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:00:58 -0400

With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States produces 25 percent of greenhouse gases, making it the second largest emitter in the world after China. The American public is well-aware of this issue; according to a Pew Research Center Poll, three-fourths of Americans described climate change as a serious problem. Since the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, support for off-shore drilling has waned substantially and more Americans want to look for clean energy policies that will avert more ecological disasters. Pew has also noted that the American public overwhelmingly supports (by 87 percent) renewable sources like wind and solar power.

Accompanying this environmental crisis is one of the worst economic periods in the nation's modern history. Overall unemployment rates are just below 10 percent and almost all states are dealing with budget shortfalls. Progressive state legislators, nevertheless, continue to take major steps to lessen our dependence on oil, create jobs that remain in this country, diversify our energy sources, and ensure that these sources are transmitted and distributed through a reliable electrical system.

States have taken an important – and often primary – role in setting the environmental and energy agenda in the United States. A review of state policies, federal policies based on state models, and federal policies where state leaders play a key role in implementation demonstrates that state actions will have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 536 million metric tons per year by 2020. As Progressive States Network has described in previous Stateside Dispatches, increasing the number of renewable energy systems reduces greenhouse gas emissions, relieves grid congestion, creates jobs, and provides their owners with surplus energy to sell back to the market.

In this Dispatch, PSN will examine clean energy options that contribute to a green economy, including evaluating the great strides that energy supply alternatives have created in the states that have enacted policies that promote them. We will explain how states have established Renewable Portfolio Standards and how these have created the demand for innovative investment, as well as how to promote new sources of renewable energy, including creative financial mechanisms, multi-state agreements, and the upgrade of an electrical grid that will better transmit energy from these intermittent sources. And for states looking for new job creation strategies, one key fact is that the production, installment and maintenance of renewable energy sources create sustainable jobs.

Federal Support for State Action: The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) assisted continued action by states with the inclusion of a wide array of provisions to spur clean energy generation and energy efficiency. A special package of $85 billion was allocated towards energy and transportation related spending, dedicating $21 billion toward incentives for wind, solar, and other renewable energy manufacturers. ARRA also provides more than $30 billion for direct spending on clean energy programs, including $11 billion to modernize the electricity grid, $2.5 billion for research into renewable energy, and $6 billion for state and local efforts to achieve energy efficiency. In addition to all of these national efforts, ARRA allocates $3.1 billion to the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program, which distributes funds to help state governments improve energy efficiency and expand the use of renewable energy in their states. According to Environment America, programs that have been funded by ARRA are expected to reduce emissions by approximately 10 million metric tons per year by 2020.

Resources
Environment America - America on the Move: State Leadership in the Fight Against Global Warming, and What it Means for the World
American Clean Energy and Security Act
Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act

Table of Contents:

- Renewable Energy Sources in the States

- Renewable Portfolio Standards: One Key to Promoting Alternative Energy Production

- Putting a Price on Carbon: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Agreements

- Clean Energy Financing Options

- Networking the Green Economy: Creating Jobs and Improving the Transmission of Renewable Energy Sources

- Conclusion: A Greener Economy Drives Job Creation

Renewable Energy Sources in the States

Renewable energy sources (used interchangeably here as alternative energy sources) include solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, geothermal, conventional hydroelectric, and biomass waste. The production of renewable energy largely depends on the geographic location of these resources, the availability and location of infrastructure, and demand for energy. As such, the two most common barriers for the development of alternative energy sources are (1) cost, and (2) lack of infrastructure.

Solar Energy: Pike Research forecasts that the United States will become the largest market for small solar installations by 2011, surpassing Germany, the best known solar energy producer in the world. Unlike fossil fuels, solar energy is clean, safe and everywhere. With higher demand, solar energy is costing less. Thanks to this rapid growth, it is believed that the US can reach the goal of obtaining 10 percent energy consumption from the sun by 2030. One of the drawbacks of solar energy, however, is that it is intermittent and consequently not always available to match demand. It is therefore imperative that we use technologies that can measure the various levels of power that solar energy can generate and transmit them according to on- and off-peak times.

Wind Energy: Wind energy has become the fastest growing source of electricity in the United States. In fact, in 2008, the US surpassed Germany to reclaim the world’s leadership in installed wind power capacity. And in 2009, the wind industry increased by 39 percent. Now, almost two percent of our electricity is coming from wind turbines. Further, about half of components used in wind farms are now made in the US, compared with 25 percent in 2004, meaning that jobs in this sector have increased rapidly.

Thanks to our transition into wind generation, the US Department of Energy attributes approximately 17 million metric tons of the decline in carbon dioxide emissions during 2009 to expanded production of zero-emission electricity compared to 2008 levels. Environment America also concludes that the increase in renewable energy production since 2004 could be assumed to have reduced emissions in 2009 by roughly 44 million metric tons. Texas is currently the nation’s top wind producer, with a total of 9,410 megawatts, about three times more than the second-largest producer, Iowa. They are followed by California, Washington, and Minnesota.

On their own, solar and wind power can significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we normally emit, and together, they can complement each other. Under the right conditions, solar generated energy is at its highest output during the hours when wind resources are least likely to be available.

Resources
Center for Social Inclusion - Solar Energy Generation at the Community Level: Briefing Paper Five of Black, Brown and Green
The New York Times - Wind Power Grows 39% for the Year
US Department of Energy - Short‐Term Energy Outlook Supplement: Understanding the Decline in Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009

Renewable Portfolio Standards: One Key to Promoting Alternative Energy Production

A renewable electricity standard (also known as renewable portfolio standard) requires utilities to develop renewable energy resources as part of their energy portfolio. In other words, an RES (or RPS) requires utilities to obtain a certain share of electricity they deliver to consumers from renewable resources. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted minimum standards requiring that a percentage of their electricity come from renewable energy. Five additional states (Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia) have set voluntary renewable portfolio standards.

Thanks to these standards, about three percent of power generated in the United States originates from renewable energy sources. The Department of Energy attributes state laws as the force behind the use of renewable sources. In concurrence, research by the North American Electricity Reliability Council shows that over 50 percent of the increase in renewable energy capacity occurred in states with mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standards.

These efforts will reduce global warming pollution by 79 million metric tons nationwide. Environment America calculates that 119 million metric tons will be reduced by 2020 thanks to RES policies and the reductions in electricity consumption that will result from other related policies.

Renewable Energy Standards Vary from State to State: The mix of resources eligible for credit varies greatly from one state to the next: some include “carve outs” for particular technologies (most often solar power), and some allow out-of-state resources to count on an equal basis with in-state resources through credit trading. Each state has designed its RES to account for a range of state-specific conditions and policy priorities. These include available wind, solar and other renewable energy potential in a state, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating other environmental externalities associated with fossil fuels, and lowering electricity costs to consumers. Other goals include diversifying the energy mix to protect against potential fuel interruptions and attracting wind and solar farms, product manufacturers, and research and development facilities to promote economic development and job creation.

The first renewable energy standard was adopted in Iowa in 1983. Massachusetts, Nevada, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey and Wisconsin followed suit in the late 1990s, all enacting standards in the space of a few years. RES spread even more widely in the 2000s, while many states that had been among the first to adopt the policy updated their legislation to enact more aggressive renewable energy goals and to ease implementation of the policy.

Even when states have already implemented renewable portfolio standards, they are still seeking to expand them. States have expanded compliance dates, raised compliance targets, or added carve-outs for specific technologies.

Oregon’s HB 3039, enacted into law in 2009 two years after the renewable portfolio standard was first signed, includes a solar photovoltaic standard within the state renewable portfolio standard. Oregon state legislators continue to seek to amend existing laws to increase RPS requirements over the years.
In 2002, Nevada enacted an aggressive renewable portfolio standard that required that 15 percent of all electricity generated be derived from renewable resources by 2013. In June 2005, Nevada raised the requirements of the RPS by 20 percent of sales by 2015.
Virginia also increased the state’s renewable portfolio standard to 15 percent during the 2009 legislative session.

We previously highlighted Colorado's leadership in clean energy legislation, including its recent law to expand its renewable energy standards. In one of the most far-reaching environmental initiatives in the country, HB 1001 requires 30 percent of large utilities' electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. In detail, utilities must supply at least 12 percent of their retail electric sales from such sources from 2011 to 2014, 20 percent from 2015 to 2019, and 30 percent for 2020 and beyond. Three percent of this standard must be met by local solar power, leading to the construction and installation of 100,000 solar rooftops, panels, and turbines.

The Undeniable Success of a Renewable Energy Standard: Seventy percent of the fastest growing energy supply -- wind power -- was generated in the US thanks to a renewable energy standard. Between 2004 and 2009, state mandates for renewable energy have averted the release of approximately 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution in 2009. By requiring utilities to invest in renewable energy, states have established policies that have leveled the playing field for clean energy sources to compete with traditional fossil fuel.

Experts project that the manufacturing renewable sector has the potential to employ many more Americans in green jobs. Of the 18 states that have both renewable portfolio and energy efficiency standards in place, 11 states (61 percent) had more jobs in the clean energy economy than the national average. Similarly, in 12 of those 18 states, clean energy jobs made up a larger share of all jobs when compared to the US average.

Resources
Progressive States Network - Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Advance in the States
Center on Wisconsin Strategy, the Workforce Alliance, the Apollo Alliance - Greener Pathways: Jobs and Workforce Development in the Clean Energy Economy
Stateline - The Rush to Renewables
Center for Social Inclusion - Solar Energy Generation at the Community Level: Briefing Paper Five of Black, Brown and Green
Environment America - America on the Move: State Leadership in the Fight Against Global Warming, and What it Means for the World
Progressive States Network - Colorado Leads Clean Energy Reform
Environment Maryland - Building a Solar Future: Repowering America's Homes, Businesses, and Industry with Solar Energy
Apollo Alliance - As Oil Spill Tragedy Continues, Clean Energy Progress in Missouri and Georgia Points to Hope for the Future
Renewable Energy World - Where the Wind Blows and Sun Shines: A comparative analysis of state renewable energy standards

Putting a Price on Carbon: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Agreements

In addition to complying with their own statewide portfolio, twenty-three states are participating in three major regional initiatives seeking to increase renewable energy generation and reduce carbon pollution from power plants that cause global warming. The most famous of these agreements is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI, composed of 10 Northeastern states: New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

RGGI's 2002 Working Group proposed to keep emissions flat from 2009 to 2015, and then begin to cut the cap by 2.5 percent each following year. By 2018, emissions are expected to be reduced by 10 percent from the program's start date. RGGI holds an auction where the member states sell credits for carbon emissions. The buyers are electric utilities who purchase credits either to be able to emit carbon dioxide or to re-sell those credits to other utilities. Under this cap-and-trade regime, each auction raises on average $80.5 million and in total the auctions have raised $663 million. The money raised in these auctions is supposed to be directed towards projects that promote energy efficiency.

Although some states have used some of the RGGI funds to fill in the gaps of their state's budget, the RGGI still continues to create job opportunities for workers who conduct energy audits and install home weatherization measures. For example, the Center for Ecological Technology, a company that conducts RGGI-funded efficiency efficiency work on behalf of electric utilities has doubled its workforce - from 50 to 100 full-time employees. This increase has also spearheaded the creation of new positions in the IT and customer service departments. Furthermore, thanks to RGGI, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are below the cap they set. Along with RGGI, the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) has been created to reduce emissions across the region by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Seven US states (Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) and four Canadian provinces are part of WCI; the program, to be fully implemented by 2015, will cover close to 90 percent of emissions from the states' and provinces' territories. Also in the Midwest, six US states (Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) and a Canadian province have joined to form the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Accord in order to reduce their emissions. MGGA's Advisory Group recently published its final recommendations, setting an emissions reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Altogether, 23 states, accounting for half of the US population, are involved in greenhouse gas reduction accords.

Other Ways to Put a Price on Carbon: The most straightforward, and many would argue transparent, method to curtail carbon emissions might be to pay precisely for producing them. A carbon tax is aimed at taxing the actual emissions of carbon dioxide from energy producers. Instituting a tax provides the certainty of compliance, and has been successfully implemented in several countries, including Norway, Sweden and Germany. Carbon tax legislation has been introduced in US cities like Portland, Oregon and Boulder and Aspen in Colorado. According to the Oregon plan, builders that do not construct an energy efficient home must pay a fee. By the same token, the plan gives developers cash rewards if they save at least 45 percent more energy than the Oregon building code would require. The Boulder plan charges on the number of kilo-watt hours used, directing the profits to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. The idea of taxing for carbon emissions has received a lot of support from environmental and labor activists, and even from Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson.

Please click image above to view a full chart of state Mandatory Renewable Energy Standards for 2010 from RenewableEnergyWorld.com.

Resources
Stateline - The RGGI raid: how cap-and-trade revenues went to fix state budgets
Progressive States Network - Bold Plan for Carbon Tax Introduced in Portland, OR
Environmental Protection - First RGGI 2010 Auction Yields $87.9 M for Member States
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Western Climate Initiative
Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord

Renewable Energy Financing Options

Through public bonds, pension funds, state-managed investment pools, and leveraging federal dollars, states can direct investment dollars into alternative energy production. These financial incentives are being applied over a long period of time to establish consistent and efficient programs and create a stable market.

Federal and State Funding: Federal monies, principally through the ARRA, are being directed towards bonds that enable local and states to finance renewable energy projects. The US Department of Agriculture, for instance, operates a loan guarantee program for agricultural adoption of renewable energy. States are taking full advantage of the federal government's support. Thirty-two of them have combined federal and state funding to provide residential, commercial, and industrial loan financing for the purchase of renewable energy. The following examples paint a good picture on what states are doing with government funding:

In Colorado, SB 31 was enacted in 2009 to create the Clean Technology Discovery Evaluation grant program for the purpose of improving and expanding the development of new clean technology discoveries at higher education research institutions. The state will also allocate $2 million in grants towards renewable from 2009 ARRA funding through the Governor's Energy Office.
Montana also provides direct funding for renewable energy development through grant and loan programs that typically target generation at the scale of residential and commercial buildings. It offers a grant program to subsidize small-scale renewable installations via a state-mandated system benefits fund maintained by the state’s largest private utility. Montana’s revolving fund loans up to $40,000 per renewable project.

Municipal Financing and Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): A model called Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing enables municipalities to use their ability to obtain financing at low interest rates to pay for the upfront cost of installing renewable energy parts in businesses and homes. The financing is recouped through a special assessment on the property owner’s taxes, or in certain cases, their utility bill. In most programs, property owners pay back the costs over a period of 20 years. The tax remains with the property; if a property owner sells the property during the period of financing, the responsibility to pay back is transferred to the new owner. Hence, PACE absolves the homeowner of the risk that they will move out before they receive the full benefits of the system. Two barriers to making energy upgrades are therefore eliminated: (1) the up-front costs, and (2) the question of who pays for ongoing costs for upgrades when properties are sold.

The White House has estimated that if only 15 percent of residential property owners in the US took advantage of PACE related programs, the resulting emissions reductions would contribute to four percent of the savings needed for the US to reach 1990 emissions by 2020. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, PACE programs promise to lower energy bills for consumers and create jobs in home weatherization and renewable energy installation. So far, PACE programs have been authorized in 23 states.

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change

California enacted AB 811 in 2008 to allow cities and counties to offer PACE financing. Under the California program, property owners seeking funding for energy efficiency improvements must have a clear property title and be current on property taxes and mortgages. Financing may originate from bonds, local government funds, and third-party lenders. Under Minnesota law, loan amounts may not exceed 10 percent of the assessed value of the property and may include costs related to the required energy audit or feasibility study, equipment and labor costs, and performance verification. A recently enacted New York law (AB 40004A) allows counties, towns, cities and villages to offer sustainable energy loan programs that can pay for energy audits, cost-effective, permanent energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy feasibility studies, and the installation of renewable energy systems. The local program determines the sectors eligible for financing, and qualification for the loan is contingent on energy audits or renewable energy feasibility studies that meet New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) or equally stringent standards. Energy efficiency improvements must meet cost-effectiveness criteria as established by NYSERDA. Land-secured financing districts for PACE programs have been created in Florida, Georgia (HB 1388-2010), Hawaii, Louisiana (SB 224-2009), Nevada, Vermont (HB 446-2009), and New Mexico (SB 647-2009).

Also last year, Oregon established the Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Technology loan program to provide state loans for residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The 100 percent upfront long term, low-interest loans can be paid back on the utility bill. The program is financed through state bonding and private loans.

This year, Maine enacted LD 1717 to implement a loan program through a local ordinance that provides financing for property owners who want to put clean energy improvements in their homes. This legislation is unique in two ways: (1) municipalities will be able to use federal grants or any other funds available for the purpose of funding PACE programs; and (2) PACE assessments will be considered subordinate liens, secondary to mortgages. Further more, Efficiency Maine Trust was directed to promulgate rules for Maine's PACE program, including eligible efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations, standards for underwriting requirements, and truth in lending provisions which are to guide the consumer disclosure that must be included in PACE agreements.

Another eight states have introduced PACE bills in 2010 in their legislatures, including Hawaii (SB 2865 and HB 2643), Missouri (HB 2178, HB 2298 and SB 1037), Michigan (HB 5640), New Jersey (AB 2500), Illinois (SB 2505).

Georgia also approved legislation this year (HB 1388) to help residential and commercial property owners make energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements to their properties through voluntary property assessments.

PACE Programs Under Challenge: Recently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac asserted that because PACE programs' liens take priority over existing mortgages, this poses a risk to lenders and secondary market entities, as well as alter valuations for mortgage-backed securities. Consequently, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the US Treasury Department have instructed banks to place additional restrictions on home loans to borrowers in jurisdictions that have PACE programs. In response, cities and states have taken action to save PACE.

For instance, the state of California has filed a complaint against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack for blocking PACE programs; California Attorney General Jerry Brown argues that PACE funding is an assessment, not a loan, and that Fannie and Freddie have long accepted local governments' use of assessments in California to finance improvements that serve a public purpose. The city of Babylon in New York will likely follow California's action; its leaders joined more than 50 local workers at a rally last Tuesday to announce the town's plans to sue the FHFA. As these leaders note, programs like those in California actually work to reduce the risk of default by requiring a clean record on property taxes and mortgages. In New York, stringent standards have to be met in order to obtain financing under PACE. And in Maine, the Efficiency Maine Trust is creating standards for underwriting requirements and truth in lending provisions to guide consumer disclosure. Further, more federal money is being allocated to fund and guarantee the success of PACE programs. Last year, the US Department of Energy announced funding for PACE projects and is apportioning $80 million as upfront capital for PACE-type programs. PACE programs can also apply for competitive grants under the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant Program.

Feed-In-Tariffs: One other funding source for renewable energy is where a company that installs and maintains a renewable source device receives a Power Purchase Agreement or Feed-In-Tariff with a customer. Here, the customer pays no upfront costs while the energy provider pays for the entire project including installation, maintenance, and trouble shooting. Also, this relationship guarantees that the installation can take place quickly, the service is predictable, and the rate is at parity with other retail electricity rates. Feed-in tariffs have played a role in the development of Germany’s world-leading solar power industry. In the United States, feed-in-tariffs have been adopted in Vermont and Washington.

The Vermont feed-in-tariff law was designed to ensure that homeowners or businesses receive the same return on equity for their investment. Vermont's legislation bases the tariffs on the cost of generation plus a reasonable profit. Vermont's feed-in tariff program contains the key elements of the successful policies found in Europe: tariffs are differentiated by technology and size; tariffs are set on the cost of generation plus profit; and profit is set by a reasonable rate of return, loan contracts terms, and a regular program review.

Rebate Programs: By providing cash incentives, more homeowners and businesses will install renewable devices and technologies in their buildings. States have taken note of this efficient strategy. Twenty-three of them and the District of Columbia offer rebate programs to promote the installation of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency measures such as solar water heating and photovoltaic systems. We highlight a few of them:

California's Million Solar Roofs Initiative provides grants to homeowners who install solar systems, with the amount of the rebate declining over time to reflect the anticipated declining cost of solar power.

Thanks to ARRA funding, Minnesota offers rebates of $100 to $250 on refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes washers, and New Jersey residents will be able to receive rebates worth $25 to $ 100 on the purchase of those same items. Similar rebate programs for home appliances exist in Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Net Metering: Net metering allows customers who generate electricity through renewable sources to receive credit for electricity they put on the grid. In other words, net metering customers buy electricity when they need it, use the electricity they produce, and sell any excess to the utility. This provides an incentive for consumers to invest in small renewable generation systems. More than 40 states and the District of Columbia have adopted net metering laws.

Last year, Nebraska's LB 436 was enacted to provide net metering for electricity. It includes one to one credit for energy generated up to the amount used, protection against additional utility charges and fees, protection against unnecessary safety or performance standards, and prohibition of additional liability insurance.
Newly enacted AB 510 in California raises the cap set on the number of homes and businesses that can take advantage of net energy metering. Current law caps the amount of electricity that can be generated under the net metering program to 2.5 percent of a utility’s peak demand. AB 510 raises the net metering cap to 5 percent and will help meet projected demands received under the California Solar Initiative program. The law further allows the rate-making authority to compensate net energy producers for the value of the electricity itself, and the value of the renewable attributes of the electricity. Moreover, net energy producers will receive a bonus if the renewable attributes of the energy production add indefinite or unforeseen benefits. Environmental advocates claim that the law, which was introduced last year but died in committee, finally balances the interests of utilities, customer-generators, and non-participating customers. This is a great win for the more than 50,000 customers, including schools, community colleges, cities and counties and homeowners in California who participate in net metering.
New Jersey has one of the most comprehensive net metering and interconnection laws in the United States. It includes a wide array of renewable sources: solar technologies, wind, fuel cells, geothermal technologies, wave or tidal action, and methane gas from landfills or biomass facilities. This program has been praised for standardizing the interconnection procedures for residential and small-commercial customers, who pay at the end of the each year for every excess Kwh they produce.

Protecting the Ability to Install Renewable Energy Sources: States are also enacting rules to protect access to renewable energy. Last year, Virginia enacted SB 320, which voids covenants that restrict installation of use of any solar energy collection device on private property.

Resources
Progressive States Network - Colorado Leads Clean Energy Reform
The Pew Charitable Trusts - The Clean Energy Economy: Repowering Jobs, Businesses and Investments Across America
The Apollo Alliance - As Oil Spill Tragedy Continues, Clean Energy Progress in Missouri and Georgia Points to Hope for the Future
The White House - Policy Framework for PACE Financing Programs
Environment America – America on the Move
Center for Social Inclusion - Solar Energy Generation at the Community Level: Briefing Paper Five of Black, Brown and Green
Progressive States Network - Green Buildings: Multi-State Agenda Campaign Update
Apollo Alliance - Efforts Underway to Save Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Programs
The White House - Policy Framework for PACE Financing Programs
Center on Wisconsin Strategy, the Workforce Alliance, the Apollo Alliance - Greener Pathways: Jobs and Workforce Development in the Clean Energy Economy
Environment Maryland - Building a Solar Future: Repowering America's Homes, Businesses, and Industry with Solar Energy

Networking the Green Economy: Creating Jobs and Improving the Transmission of Renewable Energy Sources

Renewable sources present unique and serious transmission challenges due to their intermittency (solar and wind) and the remoteness of the site of generation. For renewable energy production to maintain its current rate of growth, it must overcome significant obstacles, including the lack of capacity and connectivity in the regional electrical infrastructure. The only way that we can fully maximize the use of renewable energy sources is by upgrading the current electrical system. With an upgraded, or smart, grid, renewable energy production overcomes significant obstacles including lack of capacity and connectivity. Improving the electric grid will expand the ability of renewable energy and energy conservation to meet the nation’s energy needs.

The smart grid is an aggregate term that refers to a distribution system that allows the flow of information to the consumer and to the utility company through thermostats, Web based programs, appliances, and other devices. Establishing smart grids at the transmission level will enable digital controls and high-voltage transmission lines to transport energy from renewable energy sources. A smart grid improves the management of the distribution and consumption of energy that results in the integration of various sources of renewable energy into our power system. In this manner, it facilitates more efficient energy use and reduces the amount of emissions from harmful greenhouse gases.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act apportioned $4.5 billion on smart grid demonstration projects. Beyond this, $11 billion will be invested in general improvements to the grid, another important step towards a grid that will allow for more flexible and efficient generation and use of power.

Last year, California enacted SB 17/AB 238 to declare that new and modified electric transmission facilities, including the employment of smart grid technologies, are necessary to facilitate the state's energy efficiency goals and renewable portfolio transmission facilities. This is the first smart grid state law in the country, as it promotes the installation of smart meters, data networks and other infrastructure for a cleaner, more efficient electrical grid by — by July 1, 2010. Under this law, the Public Utility Commission is required to report on a yearly basis, starting on Jan. 1, 2011, to the governor and legislature on the progress being made in improvements to the electrical grid.
Vermont and Maryland have each provided funding to study smart metering and/or smart grids, as a means of reducing energy use.
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has teamed with utilities in the states of Washington and Oregon to test new energy technologies designed to improve efficiency and reliability, while at the same time, increasing consumer choice and control.
In North Carolina, 100 Lafayetteville residents and businesses cut energy use an average of 20 percent during a six-month pilot last year. The customers were equipped with software that enabled them to check their energy use from the Internet.

By using applications and devices supported by digital infrastructure, such as broadband and information communication technology, we can build a green economy:continuing our economic growth and creating new jobs while decreasing our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Resources
Progressive States Network - Networking the Green Economy: How Broadband and Related Technologies Can Build a Green Economic Future
Progressive States Network - Green Jobs Programs to Drive Economic Recovery
The Apollo Alliance - Make It in America: The Apollo Green Manufacturing Action Plan
Progressive States Network - Networking the Green Economy: How Broadband and Related Technologies Can Build a Green Economic Future

Conclusion: A Greener Economy Drives Job Creation

Nearly six out of ten jobs in the green economy fall specifically in the area of energy generation, which includes jobs responsible for producing clean forms of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal. Jobs responsible for solar power generation dominate this subgroup: 62.5 percent of all energy generation jobs in 2007 were in the solar industry. Jobs in wind power were second overall, making up 9.7 percent of energy generation jobs in 2007, but they grew more rapidly – by 23.5 percent between 1998 and 2007, compared to 19.1 percent growth for solar power jobs during the same period. Since the ARRA was enacted, an estimated 150,000 jobs were saved or created in the construction of solar panels and wind turbines.

Industry sector experts have cited state policies such as renewable portfolio standards as important factors in driving investments, attracting companies and growing new industries and jobs because they help create market demand for clean energy technologies, products, and services. However, without key policies such as renewable electricity standards, the market will be slow to grow. The Union of Concerned Scientists agree; they have estimated that a national RPS requiring 20% in renewable energy sources by 2020 could generate 355,000 jobs across the country. Also by this time, the domestic market for renewable energy supplies is likely to reach $226 billion annually.

Potential Federal Action: While states are still making progress on their own, a stronger federal partner would help. Last year, US Representatives introduced the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which requires that 20 percent of the country’s electricity be generated by renewable energy by 2020. This year, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (also known as the APA) was unveiled in the Senate. The APA includes: a cap and price on greenhouse gas emissions, similar to a cap-and-dividend already considered at the state-level, a target for reducing those emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, and a fee for “carbon leakage” of imports in order to level the playing field between American manufacturers and foreign competitors that emit carbon. Not included in the Senate bill is a national renewable portfolio standard. Although the APA offers support for renewable energy sources, a federal mandate is needed in order to push the remaining 20 states to seriously commit to the use of alternative sources of energy. In the absence of renewable energy standards in the American Power Act, states can and must continue to fill in gap by continuing to mandate the use of renewable energy.

State Policy Program: Whatever the feds ultimately do, states are taking action to ensure that the future is bright -- literally and metaphorically -- for alternative energy production in the United States. With more than half of states having enacted renewable portfolio standards we are well under way to achieving our environmental and economic goals, but much more needs to be done. States should continue to build on their track record of innovation in clean energy policy by continuing to enact and renew their renewable energy goals. Specifically, as this Dispatch has demonstrated, states should:

Enact RPS standards, and for those that have enacted them, to find ways to set higher goals that can be accomplished and are meaningful;
Provide financial support -- in the form of bonds, rebates, or other innovative financing mechanisms -- to accelerate the deployment of more renewable energy technologies;
Integrate renewable sources into an upgraded, “smart” grid, and;
Create good, sustainable green jobs that will enable those employees to develop, manufacture, deploy, and maintain the various elements of renewable sources and smart grid infrastructure.

The key is not only promoting renewable energy supplies, but also of creating actual incentives that spur their use. These incentives come in the form of mandating goals for renewable use, as was the case in Colorado, and placing financial incentives for clean energy investment. As more and more renewables are manufactured, installed and used, it is imperative that our electrical grid also undergoes a drastic reformation.

Resources
Environment America - America on the Move
Headwaters Economics - Clean Energy Leadership in the Rockies: Competitive Positioning in the Emerging Green Economy
Pew Research Center Publications - An Increase in GOP Doubt About Global Warming Deepens Partisan Divide
The Pew Charitable Trusts - The Clean Energy Economy: Repowering Jobs, Businesses and Investments Across America
Center for Social Inclusion - Solar Energy Generation at the Community Level: Briefing Paper Five of Black, Brown and Green

Unemployment Insurance Extension Filibuster Worsens Economic Pain

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:13:40 -0400

The country is still reeling from the effects of the downturn. Though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has undoubtedly benefited the economy, there are still 15 million Americans out of work.

Unfortunately, due to right-wing obstructionism in the US Senate, Congress was unable to extend unemployment insurance (UI) resulting in 1.7 million Americans losing their benefits on July 3. The Department of Labor released state-by-state breakdowns of Americans who lost UI earlier this month.

Follow this link to view a chart of the Estimated Number of Claimants Losing Unemployment Benefits by July 3, 2010 if Congress Fails to Continue Federal UI Programs.

If Congressional inaction continues, a total of 3.2 million workers will lose their umemployment benefits by the end of July. Furthermore, as the Center for American Progress notes, "[t]he lapse in congressional reauthorization forces 23 states and the District of Columbia to stop distributing extended benefits at a time when additional unemployment insurance benefits are needed most."

Not only are unemployment benefits critical for the long-term unemployed, but federal inaction on UI threatens economic recovery. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com and former adviser to Senator John McCain, finds that extending unemployment benefits provides a significant fiscal bang for the buck in fueling economic recovery by maintaining consumer spending in hard-hit communities. In fact, every $1 in federal spending on extending UI generates $1.61 in market activity.

As Zandi states, "[t]he odds that the economy will slip back into the recession are still well below even. But if Congress is unable to provide this help, those odds will rise and become uncomfortably high." Congress needs to move swiftly and boldly on enacting further job creation to boost the ailing economy. If you are a state lawmaker, please sign onto a letter calling on the President and Congress to enact a comprehensive jobs plan, including fiscal relief to states and local governments to foster economic growth and create and maintain jobs.

Resources
Center for American Progress - Today's Unemployment Crisis by the Numbers
House Ways and Means Committee - Estimated Number of Claimants Losing Unemployment Benefits by July 3, 2010if Congress Fails to Continue Federal UI Programs
The Huffington Post - Congress Should Quit Its Deficit Dithering Unless It Wants Another Recession
Mark Zandi - The Impact of the Recovery Act on Economic Growth
Progressive States Network - Saving Jobs: More Federal Action Needed on State Fiscal Relief

Wal-Mart Deal for Higher Wages in Chicago Highlights Need for Industry-Specific Wage Legislation

Tim Judson — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:42:31 -0400

For the first time in the nation, Wal-Mart has agreed to a higher wage standard at a new store to be built in Chicago, Illinois. The retail giant’s commitment was part of an agreement to assure City Council support for zoning approvals, on which the Council voted Wednesday. The deal also concludes a six-year fight over what will be only Wal-Mart’s second store in the Windy City. As we reported previously, Wal-Mart reached a stalemate with labor unions in 2006, after the City Council passed an industry-specific wage standard for big box retailers, which was later vetoed by Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Under the new agreement, Wal-Mart commits to a starting wage of $8.75, $0.50 per hour higher than the minimum wage for new employees. After one year of employment, Wal-Mart will raise workers’ wages by $0.60 to $9.35 per hour. Wal-Mart also agreed to pay prevailing wage, use union contractors to build the store and to provide $20 million to local non-profits over five years. The company claims the deal paves the way for it to move forward with plans to open two-dozen more stores in Chicago by 2015, although the agreement does not cover any other stores.

Legislation Needed to Lock-in Higher Wage Standards: Despite conventional assumptions about the economy, the Wal-Mart case shows that state and local governments still have good opportunities to raise wage and labor standards, particularly on an industry-specific basis. Still, this is a an agreement for only one store, rather than the city-wide policy embodied in the original ordinance approved by the City Council. Wal-Mart was able to negotiate its compromise by fragmenting the opposition with promises of temporary benefits to the building trades and non-profits and avoiding broader legislation. If Chicago enacted its 2006 wage ordinance, the local economy would have benefited from thousands of workers throughout the city’s big-box retail sector being lifted out of poverty and depending less on public services.

While the deal represents a first for Wal-Mart, it falls short of other actions cities and states are taking to set higher industry-specific wage and labor standards. For instance, in 2008 Los Angeles passed a law that sets a living wage standard at all hotels near the LAX airport; and in 2009, New York state passed a law requiring labor peace agreements for all hotels developed or financed by the state through its public benefit corporations. New York is also considering a bill that would set a prevailing wage standard for building service workers employed by public utilities.

A similar fight is looming over Wal-Mart’s plans to build its first store in New York City, where the City Council in December stood strong by rejecting another retail project because the developer would not agree to a living wage standard. According to City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the question for elected officials is not about creating jobs or not creating jobs, but about what kind of jobs the city should be creating: “We don't want companies that have led the nation in law suits being brought against them by workers,” she said. “We don't want companies that have the largest class-action in history brought against them. We don't want companies where women are, over and over, paid less than men and not promoted.”

Resources
National Employment Law Project - The Road to Responsible Contracting
Good Jobs First - High Road or Low Road? Job Quality in the New Green Economy
Good Jobs First - Making the Connection: Transit-Oriented Jobs and Development
Economic Policy Institute - The Employment Impact of a Comprehensive Living Wage Law, Evidence from California

Paid Sick Days Legislation has Overwhelming Support, Polling Shows

Tim Judson — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:56:56 -0400

86% of the public favors legislation that would mandate seven paid sick days per year for all employers, according to study sponsored by the Public Welfare Fund in collaboration with the National Partnership of Women and Families (full results here). Even when the public is asked about mandating nine paid sick days per year, 71% still support the proposed legislation. The study found that paid sick days legislation enjoys deep public support across all demographics and political leanings, including large majorities of Republicans as well as Democrats.

In response to the statement, “Paid sick days is a basic worker right, just like being paid a decent wage,” not only did 75% of public agree, but on a scale of 1 to 10 signifying agreement, 43% rated the statement a 10 and 64% agreed strongly (rating it an 8 or higher).

The issue strongly colors how voters view elected officials, with 47% saying they would favor a candidate who supports paid sick days, while only 14% said they would not support that candidate.

Job Losses Suffered Due to Need for Sick Days Drives Opinion: Driving the poll numbers is the reality that too many workers have lost a job or been threatened with losing a job because they needed to take a sick day for themselves or to care for a family member. One out of every six people (16%) has lost their job for missing work due to illness, and one in four (25%) has been told they would either lose their job or be suspended or punished. And while 64% of workers are “eligible” for paid sick leave, the real picture is much more dire:

Less than half of the workforce (47%) can take a paid sick day to care for a sick child or family member, meaning most parents either have to risk their job to care for their children or send them to school sick.
Most workers (58%) whose employers offer only generic “paid time off” get a total of 10 days or less per year to cover vacation, personal, and sick leave.
55% of people without paid sick days have had to go to work sick, compared to 37% of workers who can take a paid sick day.
24% of those without paid sick days have had to send a sick child to school because they couldn't get the day off, while only 14% of those with paid sick days had to do so.

Public Does Not Believe Paid Sick Days Hurts Business Bottom Line: While paid sick days legislation has faced vigorous opposition from some in the business community, in most of the 23 states where it has been introduced, the public overwhelmingly rejects the typical arguments that paid sick days will harm jobs or individual businesses. The research indicates that their messages are not persuasive to voters:

54% of those polled find "very convincing" the argument that "Requiring paid sick days doesn't hurt employers' bottom line" because paid sick days increases worker productivity.
By contrast, only 26% of those polled found the opposition argument "very convincing" that "Given the economic downturn we are now in, businesses can't afford to add new benefits like paid sick leave."

In fact, while almost all of the arguments in favor of paid sick days were viewed by majorities as "very convincing," no arguments by opponents were considered "very convincing" and only four of seven opposing arguments were seen as even "somewhat convincing" by more than half of those surveyed.

Reinforcing the polling numbers is the reality that where paid sick days have actually been implemented, such as the City of San Francisco, even original opponents of the policy, are now applauding its success. In a recent Business Week article, the such as the Golden Gate Restaurant Association stated that paid sick days has been “the best public policy for the least cost" since the policy was enacted.

Resources
Public Welfare Fund - Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences

Workplace Standards for Domestic Workers: Breakthrough NY Legislation Approved

Tim Judson — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:59:00 -0400

On June 1, the New York Senate put the state in position to be first in the nation to enact a Domestic Workers' Rights law (S2311) by a vote of 33-28. The New York Assembly led the way in June 2009 when it passed its own version of the bill (A1470). This groundbreaking legislation will extend core labor rights, from fair labor standards to paid sick days, to creating a framework for collective bargaining, to domestic workers. This will include those employed to work in a private home to perform housekeeping and/or to care for children, the infirm, or the elderly.

The two versions of the law must be reconciled, as the Senate bill goes much farther in extending basic labor standards, but Gov. David Paterson pledged last year that he would sign the bill. A campaign to pass similar domestic workers legislation is also active in California.

Justice Seventy Years Delayed: Seventy years after passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), domestic workers like agricultural workers are still denied many basic labor protections under federal law such as overtime pay and the ability to join a union. That omission was an extension of the country's entrenched history of discrimination, particularly in the pre-Civil Rights Act era: both farm and domestic workforces had long been dominated by African Americans.

In the 21^st Century, domestic workers remain one of the most exploited segments of the workforce, being comprised almost entirely of immigrant women: according to Domestic Workers' United, 99% are foreign born, 95% are people of color, and 93% are women. Until 1974, when the FLSA was amended to extend minimum wage coverage to them, domestic workers were not protected by any major federal labor law.

As California showed by passing the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 1975, states can play a leading role in providing basic labor standards for workers abandoned by federal labor law. Just as the United Farm Workers elevated the plight of farmworkers to national attention beginning in the 1960s - and which resulted in passage of the California law - groups such as Domestic Workers United and the National Domestic Workers Alliance have just begun in the last decade to bring similar attention to promoting state and federal reforms on behalf of domestic workers.

Precedent-Setting Standards: Because of the challenging employer-employee relationship involved in domestic employment, the Senate law seeks to create a standard contract for all domestic workers specifying benefits that they are owed. The New York Assembly version has more limited but important benefits - guaranteeing a minimum wage law, prohibiting mandatory overtime, overtime pay, guaranteeing one day of rest per week, and directing the state's Labor Department to investigate a framework for providing employer-provided healthcare and collective bargaining - while the Senate version also provides for:

Paid time off, including six paid holidays, five vacation days, and seven paid sick days (with provision for holiday pay and increased overtime rate on holidays)
Two-weeks, written notice of termination, with violations subject to back-pay
Criminal penalties for violations, including misdemeanor penalties of up to $20,000 and one year in prison for first violations, and similar felony penalties for subsequent offenses
Enforcement either through civil action or prosecution by the Labor Department or Attorney General, with willful violations subject to fines equal to 25% of unpaid wages

A National Breakthrough on Paid Sick Days: Should the paid time off provisions of the Senate bill be included in the final version of the law, New York will be the first state in the country to establish paid time off as a basic labor standard, not just for domestic workers, but for any private-sector employees -- advancing basic labor standards that are common throughout the rest of the world but sorely lacking in the United States. The new law is especially significant for the movement to enact paid sick leave legislation, since it would also be the first time an entire industrial sector has acquired the right to take paid sick time off from work. The Domestic Workers' Rights bill has not met with organized opposition thus far, primarily because of the informal nature of domestic employment.

Maine Voters Reject Tax Reform Initiative, but Approve Infrastructure Investment

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:58:23 -0400

This past Tuesday, Maine votersconsidered legislation which would have reformed the state's tax structure and bond measures that will bolster infrastructure investment.By a large margin, Mainers rejected a law passed last June, LD1495, to lower the top income tax rate from 8.5 percent to 6.5 percent for state residents earning less than $250,000 annually by broadening the sales tax to include different services and shifting tax burden to nonresidents by increasing the meals and lodging tax from 7 to 8.5 percent.

Supporters of the reform initiative, most notably, Maine AFL-CIO, some regional Chambers of Commerce, the Maine Council of Churches, and the MaineCenter for Economic Policy Institute (MECEP), contended that itrepresented the most substantial reform of the state's tax code in almost four decades. Overall, MECEP found that the "modestly...progressive" package would have provided "direct help for families struggling to survive in this troubling economic climate, and it is money that will stay in the local and state economies and buoy Maine small businesses." Opponents, including conservative groups, the state's Realty Association, and businesses tied to the tourism industry,who argued against shifting some of the state's tax burden to tourists and expanding the sales tax base to include different categories of services, gatheredthe necessary signatures to place the issue up for referendum as Question 1.

While the legislation would have reduced the income tax burden for 95 percent of Maine families and made it easier to apply and receive property tax relief through the state's circuit breaker program, advocates believe the campaign to support reform faltered due to the complexity of the message. While many voters readily saw expanding the sales tax base to services as a tax increase, they were skeptical that the state would deliver on lowering the income tax burden. Sen. Joe Perry, one of the authors of the legislation, reflected on the results, "I never thought I'd seethe public vote to raise their own taxes."

The ballot defeat additionallyindicates that while the current sales tax in most states is outdated and designed for an industrial economy in which most consumer spending went to buying goods, expanding the sales tax to services is still a challenging message to articulate to voters.

Although Mainers rejected changes to the state's tax structure, voters made clear that they support spending for long-term investments to spur economic development by approving bond measures for "$26.5 million for an offshore wind energy demonstration site, related manufacturing and campus energy conservation; $47.8 million for highways, railroads and marine facilities; and $10.25 million for clean water projects."

Federal Health Reform Benefits for Early Retirees Begins on June 1st

Enzo Pastore — Thu, 27 May 2010 11:24:21 -0400

One of the immediate benefits of the Affordable Care Act is the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. Beginning June 1, 2010, this new reinsurance reimbursement program is available to group health plan sponsors who provide medical coverage to early retirees and their spouses, surviving spouses and dependents.

Program Goal: Many Americans who retire without employer-sponsored insurance and before they become Medicare eligible are faced with the possibility of seeing their retirement savings disappear because of unaffordable, exorbitant rates in the individual insurance market. The goal of this temporary program is to provide financial assistance to employers to help them maintain the coverage they offer for their early retirees. Early retirees are individuals age 55 and older who are not yet eligible for Medicare and who are enrolled in health benefits under the employer-sponsored plan.

Employers will be reimbursed for the cost of providing certain health benefits, including medical, surgical, hospital, and prescription drug benefits. This will encourage employers to continue to provide health coverage to early retirees until the state health exchanges and federal subsidies for health coverage are implemented in January 1, 2014.

State Governments Are Eligible: Entities who are eligible to participate in the reinsurance program can be private employers, state or local governments, employee organizations, voluntary beneficiary associations or a multi-employer plan that already offers health benefits to their retirees. Both self-funded and insured plans are permitted to apply.

To receive assistance, plans must have their applications approved and certified by HHS. A number of requirements must be met in order to participate in the reinsurance program. One such requirement is that the plan sponsor must have in place programs and procedures that have or have the potential to generate cost savings for participants with chronic and high-cost conditions. Chronic and high cost conditions are defined as a condition for which $15,000 or more in applicable claims are likely to be incurred during a plan year by one participant.

Reimbursement: Plan sponsors must first submit an application to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in order to become certified to participate in the reimbursement program. Once a sponsor is certified to participate in the program, the claims submitted for reimbursement must be between $15,000 and $90,000 per year (determined on a per-participant basis). The partial reimbursements are limited to 80 percent of the costs attributable to claims that exceed $15,000.

Maintenance of Effort: While employers can use the savings to either reduce their own health care costs, provide premium relief to their workers and families or a combination of both, one important caveat of the program is a maintenance of effort requirement. This means participating sponsors must agree to maintain funding levels to support their applicable plan or plans. The federal statute requires that funds dispersed under the reinsurance program cannot be used as general revenue. The sponsors will need to indicate how the funds they receive will be applied to maintain their level of effort in supporting the plan.

With a total allocation of $5 billion, the program will end January 1, 2014, when early retirees become eligible to choose their insurance coverage through state health insurance exchanges.

Resources:
The White House - Fact Sheet: Early Benefits from the Affordable Care Act of 2010: Reinsurance Program for Early Retirees
HealthReform.gov - Fact Sheet: The Affordable Care Act’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program
Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 86: 45 - Interim Final Rule for Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (May 5, 2010)
NCSL Fact Sheets on Health Reform - Early Retiree Reinsurance Program
HealthCare POV blog - Health Care Reform - Early Retiree Reinsurance Program
McDermott, Will and Emery Newsletter - Health Care Reform - Early Retiree Reinsurance Program

State Revenue Increases Across the Nation Continue to Ease Pain of Downturn

Altaf Rahamatulla — Mon, 24 May 2010 13:28:26 -0400

Tea Party protests are purportedly an indication of Americans demanding tax and spending cuts. Yet, last Tuesday, Arizonans overwhelmingly approved Proposition 100 to temporarily increase the state's sales tax by one percent for the next three years. The measure is estimated to generate $1 billion in additional revenue per year. In spite of opposition to the tax cuts by many of the Legislature's conservative leaders, Republican Gov. Brewer campaigned diligently for the increase, emphasizing, "If we don't get the revenue we will have to cut another billion dollars."

This vote in Arizona, a state whose Legislature is so tax averse that it has enacted 42 tax cuts to its three major revenue sources since 1992, not only highlights the depth of the fiscal crisis, but additionally demonstrates that voters across the political spectrum recognize that budget shortfalls cannot be solved solely by budget cuts. The approval of the Arizona sales tax increase follows a strong vote for raising income and corporate taxes in Oregon in January.

As this Dispatch will detail, these votes mirror actions taking place in both conservative and progressive states and localities around the country. In 2009 and 2010, states have enacted a wide-ranging set of revenue increases to cope with cumulative 2010 and 2011 deficits of approximately $375 billion. Although revenue forecasts are improving, states are still reeling from historic declines in the past year.

What is remarkable is that the anti-tax movement has racked up such regular failures in the crisis, as even many state leaders previously signing "no taxes" pledges have reneged on them. Instead, popular demand for new revenue to avert budget cuts has driven legislative movement on progressive tax and budget policy.

Adding to the general public support has been research consistently showing that progressive revenue increases during a downturn is a better alternative to cuts in order to promote growth and protect vulnerable populations suffering during the recession.

Finally, this Dispatch will outline some of the effective messaging and research to demonstrate to voters that progressive measures and tax increases are economically sound and go to the programs they want preserved -- the critical step in the success of revenue campaigns.

Table of Contents:

- Red State Tax Increases and the Failure of the Anti-Tax Movement

- Wave of High-Income Tax Increases

- Eliminating Corporate and Business Tax Loopholes

- Raising and Reforming Sales and Excise Taxes

- Challenging Regressive Budget Actions

- Making the Case for Progressive Tax Policy

- The Public Supports Progressive Investments-- But Needs to Be Sold on Government Effectiveness

- The Need for Continued Federal Support

- Conclusion

Red State Tax Increases and the Failure of the Anti-Tax Movement

On top of the vote in Arizona, the Kansas Legislature recently approved a one cent sales tax increase that will take effect July 1 and bring in over $3 million in revenue to avoid cuts in school programs. Despite a vitriolic Tea Party campaign against revenue generation, St. Louis, Missouri passed a half-cent sales tax increase to restore bus lines that had been defunded and to eventually expand the city's mass transit system.

In South Carolina, the House recently voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford's veto of HB 3584 and approved an increase of the state's cigarette tax by 50 cents. Several conservative South Carolina lawmakers, who had previously signed on to an Americans for Tax Reform letter to not raise taxes, refused to abide by it and voted for the tax as well. Similarly, two Kansas House members who had signed the pledge were the margin of victory for passing the sales tax in that state. Though regressive, the new sales and excise taxes will provide funding for education and other essential services.

And even in fervently and vocally anti-tax Georgia, the Legislature imposed a temporary 1.45 percent hospital fee and raised other fees to cut the budget deficit.

Myth of an Anti-Tax Electorate: Many of these conservative leaders are just following the lead of voters across the country. Even before Arizona and Oregon votes this year, voters and lawmakers have continually rejected anti-tax initiatives, such as the so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (TABOR), over the last five years. Just last November, voters in Maine and Washington disapproved of these types of deleterious measures. In 2008, similar initiatives were defeated in Massachusetts, North Dakota and Oregon. In all three states, proposed initiatives that would have slashed or, in the case of Massachusetts, completely eliminated the income tax, were rejected at the polls. In 2006, voters in Maine, Nebraska and Oregon each rejected TABOR ballot initiatives.

In response, legislatures have increasingly taken their cue from voters, not the empty threats of the anti-tax ideologues. Of the 28 right-wing attempts to introduce TABOR legislatively, Colorado is the only state that has adopted this disastrous policy. As the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center finds, "[t]he Grover Norquist, Club for Growth, Glenn Beck, Tea Party crowd tried to use the bleak budget picture as an opportunity to ratchet down even harder as states look to find the revenue necessary to protect priorities, create jobs, and get their economies going -- but voters rejected that failed approach."

Raising Taxes is the Norm in Recessions: In 2008 and 2009, over 30 states increased taxes as a response to the recession, as the March 2010 map above displays-- with additional states like Arizona, South Carolina, Georgia and Kansas filling in additional states since then. As CBPP indicates, this parallels a general trend of states increasing revenue during recent economic downturns--"[i]n the recession of the early 1990s, some 44 states raised taxes; in the early 2000s, some 30 states did so." Raising revenue is typical during recessions.

Resources:
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center - Fiscal/Budget Issues
Progressive States Network - Public Support for Progressive Taxation & The Failure of the Anti-Tax Movement

Wave of High-Income Tax Increases

In 2009 alone, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin instituted either a permanent or temporary reform of personal income taxes. Many of these states have increased revenue by over 5 percent.

This session, the Hawaii Legislature capped itemized deductions at $50,000 for joint filers with income over $300,000, or at $25,000 for individuals earning over $150,000. The move will generate $33 million next fiscal year. This follows the state's high-end income tax increase last year after the Legislature overrode the Governor's veto to raise three top rates, with the highest increasing from 8.25 to 11 percent. The increase only applies to the top 2.6 percent of tax filers in the state.

At the end of January 2010, voters in Oregon overwhelmingly approved two ballot initiatives that ratified legislative action last year to increase high-end personal income and corporate taxes. The initiatives will only affect 2.5 percent of the state -- the richest individuals and corporations -- and generate over $700 million in the upcoming fiscal year to protect vital services.

William Gates Sr., father of Bill Gates, is leading an effort in Washington to create a state income tax for wealthy state residents. I-1098 would impose a 5 percent tax on joint filers above $400,000, and individuals making over $200,000, and a 9 percent on families making over $1 million. The proposal would also increase the business and occupation tax. In a recent article, Gates, along with Gerald Grinstein and Michael DeBell, writes, "this proposal offers a clear choice to voters: assist small businesses, cut taxes for the middle class and support much needed investments in our schools and in health care — or keep the status quo, which penalizes small business and shortchanges our children and families." If 241,153 valid voter signatures are successfully gathered by July 2, the measure will appear on the ballot in November.

In Washington DC, Councilmember Michael Brown has proposed the creation of two new income tax brackets, 8.9 percent over $250,000 and 9.4 percent over $1 million.

Resources:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Raising State Income Taxes on High-Income Taxpayers

Eliminating Corporate and Business Tax Loopholes

Corporate income tax revenue as a share of all taxes has fallen dramatically. In 1979, the corporate income tax accounted for 10.2 percent of total state tax revenue. Just last year, 11 states considered or enacted business tax increases to help deal with budget deficits and others have enacted or considered them this session. States have strategically responded to corporate tax erosion by a number of approaches, from combined reporting to eliminating wasteful tax credits.

Wisconsin enacted combined reporting in the 2009-2010 session. Combined reporting requires multi-state corporations to report profits from all entities, including subsidiaries, for tax purposes. Furthermore, combined reporting is a key policy to restrict tax avoidance and nullify certain tax shelters. Currently, over 20 states have implemented the policy.

This session, the Iowa Legislature approved HF 2527/SF 2380, which enacts modest tax credit reform, including a process to regularly examine credits, temporarily suspending the film tax credit, and in total, reducing inefficient credits by $115 million. Unfortunately, many states still pursue costly and misguided expenditures without properly assessing their value or the total revenue loss to the state.

CBPP finds that certain credits, such as those utilized for job creation, do not benefit states economically. They report, "[j]ob-creation tax credits raise a number of issues of cost and effectiveness. While 22 states have broad, statewide credits similar to those being proposed, and about another 12 states have narrower credits targeting specific industries or areas of the state, there is no evidence that these states’ economies are doing better than other states’ economies...Indeed, a state-level effort to stimulate the economy in this way can inadvertently create a fiscal drag on the state and national economy."

Tax Credit and Budget Transparency: One key step to reform is augmented transparency of how much money states are actually losing on tax credits, subsidies, contracts and corporate tax giveaways. This session, Colorado Rep. Sal Pace and Sen. Morgan Carroll introduced HB 1350, which requires any entity that receives public funds for the purpose of economic development to file an annual report to the Colorado economic development commission on jobs created, wages paid, and other important categories. If the state finds that a recipient of an economic incentive has not complied with requirements, it has the authority to “clawback,” or recapture any public money expended on the economic incentive. The measure passed the House, but ultimately failed in the Senate.

However, Gov. Bill Ritter issued Executive Order D 2010-009, which contains similar principles as the bill and directs the Colorado Economic Development Commission to compile a report on how the state can effectively track grants, loans, or tax credits issued for economic development and job creation purposes.

In late April, the Massachusetts House unanimously passed the Revenues and Expenditures Transparency Act, H 2972, to create a searchable, online database that details state spending and revenue sources. Lawmakers also approved an amendment to create greater taxpayer accountability by providing increased transparency around some business tax credits. As House Chairman of the Joint Committee on Revenue Rep. Jay Kauffman explains, "[p]ublic access to the way we raise and spend money is essential, enabling us to make more-informed decisions for the tax-paying constituents who elect us to serve on their behalf."

As U.S. PIRG comprehensively details in Following the Money: How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Governm ent Spending Data, which analyzes and ranks each state on their development of comprehensive, one-stop, one-click budget accountability and accessibility, some of the major benefits of corporate transparency, include promoting sound fiscal practices, identifying spending inefficiencies, reducing corruption, and encouraging a more focused budget process.

Several lawmakers across the country have introduced various transparency efforts in order to safeguard taxpayers, foster better budgeting practices, promote good jobs, and garner savings. PSN has model corporate transparency legislation that aims to collect comprehensive information regarding state subsidy allocation, contract distribution, tax expenditures, and corporate taxation trends.

Resources:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - A Majority of States Have Now Adopted a Key Corporate Tax Reform — “Combined Reporting”
MASSPIRG - House Adopts State Spending Website
U.S. PIRG - Following the Money: How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Governm ent Spending Data

Raising and Reforming Sales and Excise Taxes

Similar to last year, a number of states are pursuing sales and excise tax increases. Some are more targeted, such as Wyoming taxing wind energy, while others are drilling down on particular products or on Internet retailers.

Candy and Soda Taxes: This year marked a great interest in pursuing taxes on candy and soda as both Colorado and Washington State raised taxes on the products. New York Gov. David Paterson has led an effort both this year and last to assess higher taxes on sugary beverages while reducing taxes on diet drinks. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who supports the effort, stated, the "proposal will discourage consumption of high-calorie beverages while simultaneously making lower-calorie beverages more affordable, which will help lead to major gains in public health ."

Cigarettes and Alcohol Taxes: So far this year, South Carolina, Hawaii New Mexico, Utah, and Washington state raised cigarette taxes. In 2009, sixteen states enacted cigarette tax increases, while six others raised alcohol taxes.

"Amazon Tax": States lose billions every year due to the failure to collect sales taxes that are legally due on purchases made over the Internet. This hurts not only state budgets but local retailers and local job creation, as purchases shift from main street to out-of-state retailers.

In 2008, New York became the first state to require online retailers to collect sales tax on purchases to customers in the state. The state changed its tax code to mandate that an out-of-state retailer with more than $10,000 a year in sales generated through sales affiliates in the state has nexus and must collect sales and local taxes. After the bill's passage, Amazon.com immediately sued, but lost the case. The state expects to generate $47 million from the "Amazon tax."

Rhode Island and North Carolina followed New York's lead and passed the Amazon tax last year. This year, New Mexico Rep. Eleanor Chavez sponsored HB 50 to extend the state's gross receipts tax to online sales. In February, Colorado enacted HB1193 to apply the sales tax on out-of-state retailers. Showing a petty vindictiveness, Amazon canceled all business relationships with affiliates in the state in retaliation, even though there is "no connection between the affiliate program and the new law."

Resources:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - The Zero-Sum Game: States Cannot Stimulate Their Economies by Cutting Taxes
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Expanding Sales Taxation of Services: Options and Issues
Stateline.org - States Plug Budget Holes, For Now

Challenging Regressive Budget Actions

Unfortunately, some states illustrate the extremely regressive proposals and budget recklessness that come into play when states fail to raise the revenue needed.

With its requirements of a two-thirds vote threshold to pass new revenue, California has remained hamstrung in closing its massive budget crisis. In response to the downturn, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed discontinuing the state's entire welfare program, most subsidized child care, a 60 percent cut to mental health services, $750 million cut to in-home services, reducing K-12 education funding by $2.8 billion, and slashing services for the elderly and disabled. Yet, he refuses to eliminate corporate tax breaks that amount to a loss of $2.1 billion in revenue annually.

Using Strategic Revenue Increases to Target Right-Wing Governors: In New Jersey, newly-elected Gov. Chris Christie unveiled his $29.3 billion FY2011 budget proposal--an extremely regressive plan that, rather than renewing an income tax surcharge on high-end earners, cuts taxes for the wealthy while imposing severe reductions to municipal and county aid, discontinuing property tax rebates, completely eliminating funding for grants to support clinical family planning services, cutting aid to school districts, closing psychiatric hospitals, proposing a constitutional amendment to lower the property tax cap to 2.5 percent that may be placed on the November ballot, and reducing the state workforce by over 1,300 workers.

The Legislature responded to the Governor by restoring the state's millionaire's tax and property tax rebate program, forcing the governor to veto them. As state Sen. Stephen Sweeney described the Governor's position this Spring, "The wealthy people in New Jersey got a tax cut. The middle class and the poor are going to get a tax increase," since property taxes will inevitably rise with local aid cut and property tax rebates are eliminated. In response to the veto and the proposed budget cuts, 35,000 New Jerseyans flooded downtown Trenton to denounce the Governor, the largest rally in the state capitol's history. Along with an approval rating for the Governor that has dropped to 33 percent, this backlash shows that voters don't buy the argument that protecting the wealthy justifies slashing funding for working families.

In Minnesota, the Legislature agreed to 85 percent of the budget cuts proposed by the Gov. Tim Pawlenty, but also enacted a 1.3 percent increase in the income tax rate on joint taxable income in excess of $200,000. Yet the Governor still chose to veto the bill, forcing a budget deal that merely delays $1.9 billion in payments to local schools--a solution that will just push the crisis forward into next year. However, many of the candidates hoping to succeed Pawlenty have made the tax on high-income individuals a fixture of their campaign, emphasizing the way progressives can capitalize on popular support for taxing the wealthy.

Hypocrisy of Right as they Increase Taxes on Working Poor: In Georgia, the Legislature approved a bill that eliminates the refundability of the state’s low-income tax credit, which provides much needed tax relief and wage support for workers who make less than $20,000 per year, even as legislators enacted a long-term tax cut for the state's wealthiest taxpayers. If the Governor signs the bill, it would impact 1 million low-income working and elderly Georgians.

Similarly, Virginia this year enacted a cut to the state's Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that will cost 114,000 low-income families a total of $6 million. have moved forward with very harmful cuts to credit programs that assist low-income families. Gov. Christie in New Jersey similarly has proposed a reduction in the state's EITC. And Gov. Pawlenty cut funding for a renters tax credit in Minnesota, that will cost 300,000 low- and moderate-income residents $51 million, even as he fought increased taxes on the wealthy.

What stands out is that almost all states with EITCs have maintained full funding for tax relief for working families, but some rightwing governors have pushed for higher income taxes on low-income families just to protect wealthy tax payers from sharing in the burden of solving the budget crisis.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Some States Scaling Back Tax Credits for Low-Income Families
Georgia Budget and Policy Institute- Revenue Increases Help Balance the Budget in the Short Term, but Tax Cuts Will Lead to Deficits in the Long Term

Making the Case for Progressive Tax Policy

Progressives have emphasized some key messaging and research in making the case for new revenues.

Spending on Programs that Assist Low and Middle Income Families is Effective Recovery Policy:

During an economic downturn, progressive revenue generation is far preferable to deep cuts, as it allows states to provide funding for essential programs, pump money into the economy, and protect working families. A budget that relies too heavily on cuts will not only force layoffs of state employees, but will also diminish crucial services and reduce spending in the private sector.

By assisting working families, who will more readily spend their funds on basic needs, the government is boosting short-run demand and fostering market activity. A report by the Economic Opportunity Institute details:

Every dollar of state spending generates $1.41 of economic activity...Cutting state spending means fewer purchases from suppliers, reduced contracts with service providers, less money from public and private employee paychecks circulating through local businesses – and of course, fewer public services."

On the other hand, cuts are extremely damaging to the economy. Further reductions will diminish state workforces, decrease spending on crucial programs, curb economic growth, and exacerbate the effects of the downturn. The Economic Policy Institute details the danger of state budget cuts as they impact employment, economic activity, and investment in both the public and private sector.

Taxes Do Not Undermine Economic Growth:

As PSN has highlighted in previous Dispatches, research consistently shows that there is no link between tax increases and job loss. Moreover, states with higher personal income tax rates experienced significant job growth in the past decade, have more innovative new economy industries as a result of crucial investments in long-term growth industries, and sustain higher income growth.

The Overall Tax Burden Is Low:

Despite intense rhetoric from the right, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that "[f]ederal, state and local taxes—including income, property, sales and other taxes—consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950." In fact, the average rate has decreased 26 percent since the national recession began in late 2007. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reported similar results in a recent study, finding that as a result of tax cuts included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and other tax changes at the federal level, middle class families are paying the lowest proportion of federal taxes as a percent of income in decades.

But the Rich Pay Far Less of Their Income in State Taxes than Working and Middle Class Families:

The richest taxpayers have not been contributing their fair share for years. When you factor in sales and excise, property, and income taxes, states tax working families far more heavily than richer individuals, contrary to common notions about taxation. The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) finds that on average, the lowest 20 percent of earners pay about 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes while the top 1 percent pay a little over 6 percent of their income to state and local governments.

Taxes on the Wealthy Are the Most Effective Response to the Recession:

Given that the wealthy are already paying a lower percentage of their income in state taxes, it makes both economic and moral sense to raise revenues by creating a more equitable burden of taxation between wealthier and lower-income state residents. Raising income taxes on high-income individuals is the most direct way to accomplish this.

Progressive Taxes Don't Cause Out-Migration of Wealthy Residents:

And to respond to a favorite talking point of the right-wing, states that have increased the top rate in recent years have not experienced any significant out-migration of wealthy residents. For example, after the New York temporarily raised income taxes on the wealthy from 2003 to 2005, the number of high income tax returns grew 30 percent, from 250,000 to 325,000 in the state. Similar trends occurred in California and New Jersey.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Revenue Options in 2010: Making the Case and Debunking the Myths
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Raising State Income Taxes on High-Income Taxpayers
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families at Historically Low Levels
Center for Working Families and Fiscal Policy Institute - Back on Track: Why Progressive Tax Reform is an Essential Part of New York's Budget Solution
California Budget Project - Budget Cuts or Tax Increases: Which are Preferable During an Economic Downturn?
Center for American Progress report, State of American Political Ideology, 2009: A National Study of Values and Beliefs
Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy - Who Pays?
Princeton University Policy Research Institute for the Region - Trends in New Jersey Migration: Housing Employment and Taxation

The Public Supports Progressive Investments-- But Needs to Be Sold on Government Effectiveness

Polling conducted by the Center for American Progress (CAP) indicates that 79 percent of the public believes "[g]overnment investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth." Other significant findings of the study include:

69 percent believe "[g]overnment has a responsibility to provide financial support for the poor, the sick, and the elderly" - with 33 percent strongly agreeing.
60 percent of the public agree that "[r]ich people like to believe they have made it on their own, but in reality society has contributed greatly to their wealth" - with 30 percent strongly agreeing.
62 percent believe "[t]he gap between rich and poor should be reduced, even if it means higher taxes for the wealthy."
Over 60 percent believe government should "take care of people who can't care for themselves" and "guarantee food and shelter for all."

During an economic downturn when so many working families are struggling, voters are likely to support policies to raise revenue, specifically increases on the wealthiest individuals and corporations that have a much smaller tax burden than lower-income families and small businesses. They are also likely to support measures that strengthen public structures, invest in programs that benefit society collectively, and provide safeguards to those who have been hurt the most by the recession.

Need to Message the Effectiveness of Government Action: As we highlighted last fall, while the public supports government action, they are often skeptical that it will deliver on the promises of elected officials, with up to 61 percent of the public believing that "government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient" and even more, 65 percent, fearing that government policies will "serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy" rather than regular voters.

To counter these fears, a recent policy brief, Promoting Broad Prosperity, by the Topos Partnership and Demos details some key messaging on how to discuss government:

Don't talk about government in the abstract.
Emphasize that “public structures” created and maintained by government are foundational to prosperity and economic stability, as well as the strength of the middle class.
True prosperity rests on collective success, not just individual opportunity or success.
Public structures (like the FDIC, community colleges and Social Security) are built collectively and yield collective benefits.
Explain how government policies direct the flow of money to different parts of our society and help people focus on how policies lead to particular social and economic outcomes.

Since the public retains skepticism about government in the abstract, emphasize talking about new revenues to support specific public institutions like schools or other concrete programs that people support and utilize daily.

The strongest point of optimism is that younger voters, so-called Millennials, are more committed to progressive goals and notably less cynical of the effectiveness of government as a tool for achieving those ends.

Resources:
Center for American Progress - State of American Political Ideology, 2009: A National Study of Values and Beliefs
Progressive States Network - Progressive Values Dominant -- But Need to Rebuild Trust in Effectiveness of Government Action
Progressive States Network - Taxing High-Income Residents: Better than Budget Cuts, Better for Economic Growth
Topos Partnership and Demos - Promoting Broad Prosperity

The Need for Continued Federal Support

Even as states raise revenue at home, states will continue to face shortfalls in the coming year and millions of Americans remain out of work. Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody's Economy.com, reports that the revenue drop last year was "the largest decline on record going back to just after World War II." Furthermore, as Stateline.org points out, budget gaps in recent years greatly surpass those during the 2001 recession.

The crisis requires swift and bold action by federal lawmakers on job creation. Without further federal assistance, states will slash hundreds of thousands of jobs and reduce health care, education and public safety services even further than they have already.

Congress will be considering the Promoting American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010, H.R. 4213, a jobs bill that will help boost economic recovery and assist people out of work. This will result specifically in $26 billion in sorely needed funding for state and local governments health programs, known as federal medical assistance percentages (FMAP).

The legislation would also extend unemployment insurance (UI) and subsidized COBRA health coverage for those out of work, provide additional fiscal relief to states, continue expanded temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) and fund summer jobs for young workers. On top of that, the bill would close a corporate tax loophole that allows Wall Street hedge funds to have their earnings taxed as capital gains instead of as ordinary income.

If you are a state lawmaker, please sign onto this letter calling on the President and Congress to enact a comprehensive jobs plan, including relief to states and local governments to foster economic growth and create and maintain jobs.

Resources:
AFL-CIO - Act Now: Tell House to Pass Badly Needed Jobs Bill
Stateline.org - States Plug Budget Holes, for Now
Economic Policy Institute - Dire States--State and Local Budget Relief Needed

Conclusion

PSN has outlined progressive options for revenue generation and balanced budgets in previous issues of the Dispatch. The Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative also provides guidelines for closing recessionary budgets, which should include raising money available to state governments, making tax increases and reform one in the same, and encouraging augmented federal-state revenue sharing.

Resources:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Tax Measures Help Balance State Budgets
Progressive States Network - Revenue Options in 2010: Making the Case and Debunking the Myths
Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative - Solutions that Work for Main Street: Progressive Guidelines for Closing Recessionary State Budget Gaps