ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Bloomberg News Finds Holtz-Eakin’s Shoddy Research ‘Very Impressive’

By Pat Garofalo on Aug 5, 2009 at 4:05 pm

eakinwatch.jpgToday, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, economic adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) during his presidential campaign, appeared on Bloomberg News to talk about his latest endeavor: pushing for a complete repeal of the estate tax. Holtz-Eakin relies on a shoddy study that he put together for the American Family Business Foundation that falsely claims that an estate tax repeal would create 1.5 million jobs (which he upped to 2 million in the interview).

However, Bloomberg’s crew, which is usually much better about calling guests out on their nonsense, seemed very taken with Holtz-Eakin’s perspective, at one point saying that the numbers are “very impressive.” The most critical question in the entire segment was simply “how did you get those numbers,” and Holtz-Eakin’s explanation went unchallenged. Watch it:

Before Bloomberg has another guest on to talk about the estate tax, it should read up on the facts. Only 1.3 percent of the .24 percent of all estates who pay estate taxes are small businesses, making it very unlikely that a repeal would result in this much job creation. As The Tax Policy Center pointed out:

[T]he estate tax can’t have much effect on hiring by small business because hardly any owners ever face the estate tax. Most small businesses are worth far less than the exemption level (currently set at $7 million per couple and higher for many small business owners who value their firms at below market price). We estimate that only 100 small businesses and family farms would pay any tax in 2009.

Of these few businesses, “all but a handful would have sufficient liquid assets on hand (such as bank accounts, stocks, and bonds) to pay the tax without having to touch the farm or business.” And since the tax exemption is so high (with the first $7 million untaxed), the average effective rate the heirs to these estates will pay will be just 14 percent of their inheritances.

And while Holtz-Eakin expressed great concern about federal spending, no one pointed out that, were the estate tax repealed, “not only would Treasury lose nearly a half-trillion dollars over ten years that would have been collected directly by the levy, but also billions more that would be lost due to the new gaping hole in the tax code.”

As CAP’s Michael Ettlinger has said, harping on the estate tax amounts to “flacking for the Paris Hiltons, the rich heirs and heiresses who have nothing to do with small businesses.” So unless Holtz-Eakin believes that Paris Hilton is going to single-handedly create a host of jobs, his numbers need some work. And Bloomberg should know better than to let him use them unchallenged.

Related Posts

Politics

Inhofe: Sotomayor Is a ‘Racist,’ But Strom Thurmond Is A ‘Great American’

By Ian Millhiser on Aug 5, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Echoing statements by nativist former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “racist” last night on the Senate floor.  Watch it:

Interestingly, while Inhofe is convinced that the first Latina nominee to the Supreme Court is consumed by racial animus, he had very different things to say about a fellow Southern white conservative.  After former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) claimed that America would have avoided “all these problems” if it had put a segregationist in the White House, Inhofe quickly came to Lott’s defense:

“In an effort to honor the life and service of Strom Thurmond, Senator Lott made some comments that he probably wishes he had phrased differently,” Inhofe said. “I do not believe Senator Lott meant to be malicious or racist with the comments he made. I believe he was merely honoring a great American on his 100th birthday, but I believe he is right to apologize for the words he used. Racism of any type must not be tolerated.

“Many have been quick to criticize Lott, but few have been quick to accept his apology. I do not believe he harbors racist sentiments in his heart. He has apologized and appropriately clarified the meaning of his statements. I believe we should accept his apology and move forward.”

In Jim Inhofe’s America, Sonia Sotomayor is a dangerous bigot who must be stopped, but Strom Thurmond is a “great American.”

Update

Inhofe “clarifies” his comment on Sotomayor:

“Statements that seek to pit one race against another or elevate one race at the expense of another, regardless of who utters them, have no place in the American conversation,” Inhofe said. “I am not characterizing anyone as a racist, but I will categorize and condemn such racially fueled statements for what they are.”

Yglesias

Steven Hayes Thinks Bill Clinton Threw North Korea a “Lifeline”

By Matthew Yglesias on Aug 5, 2009 at 3:57 pm

As my colleague Ben Armbruster documents, the right is having conniptions over Bill Clinton’s successful effort to secure the release of two Americans being held prisoner in North Korea. Probably the most ridiculous remark comes from Steven Hayes, who says “John Bolton is right, this is a lifeline to a regime that is a terrorist regime that has proliferated nuclear technology.”

Think about that metaphor. Does Hayes really think that Clinton going to Pyongyang or not is the difference between the DPRK collapsing or not? Why would that be? I suppose this is consistent with the general neocon belief that symbolic, expressive activity on the part of Americans is the key factor in determining events abroad but it seems like a mighty extreme version of it.

Climate Progress

Obama announces $2.4B in stimulus funds for U.S. batteries and EVs: “I don’t want to just reduce our dependence on foreign oil and then end up being dependent on their foreign innovations.”

By Joe Romm on Aug 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm

President Obama announced 48 new advanced battery and electric drive projects that will receive $2.4 billion in stimulus funds.  You can read details here.  The awards cover:

  • $1.5 billion in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce batteries and their components and to expand battery recycling capacity;
  • $500 million in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce electric drive components for vehicles, including electric motors, power electronics, and other drive train components; and
  • $400 million in grants to purchase thousands of plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles for test demonstrations in several dozen locations; to deploy them and evaluate their performance; to install electric charging infrastructure; and to provide education and workforce training to support the transition to advanced electric transportation systems.

For a full list of award winners, click HERE.  For a map of their locations, click HERE.

Obama is always at the leading edge of progressive messaging, so I’ll excerpt the energy portion of his remarks in Wakarusa, Indiana today below:

Read more

Yglesias

The Value of Cold War Intelligence

By Matthew Yglesias on Aug 5, 2009 at 3:13 pm

600px-flag_of_the_soviet_unionsvg-1

Gordon Corera for the BBC takes on the interesting question of how valuable Cold War intelligence activities really were:

One reason it is hard to make a judgement is that much of the intelligence collected was military or tactical in nature, and would only have proven useful if the Cold War had gone hot.

Much effort was expended in stealing secrets like the Soviet order of battle or the design of new Soviet tanks which would have been invaluable in case of war.

This type of intelligence was collected by electronic means and satellite reconnaissance, as well as by human spies. It was used to work out how to best equip and prepare the military.

How invaluable would tactical intelligence on Soviet tanks have really been? It seems to me that the world—and certainly Britain—would be burned to a crisp one way or another. Who cares if our tanks beat their tanks prompting them to launch a nuclear first strike rather than their tanks beating our tanks prompting us to launch a nuclear first strike? There’s actually something rather astounding about the huge quantity of conventional armed forces that both sides built up on the European continent. Dwight Eisenhower, as I recall, was against this and thought that a modest-sized conventional force paired with the strategic nuclear deterrent would be good enough.

He later indicates that some valuable political intelligence was gathering regarding the Kremlin’s thinking that eventually convinced Reagan and Thatcher that the Russians were genuinely concerned that the West’s hawkish new leaders would launch an unprovoked attack. This, in turn, got the U.S. and U.K. to try to be more reassuring and generally calmed things down.

Politics

Reagan Admin. Economist: ‘Just Wait Until You See Medicare and Medicaid Done…By the Government’

By Zaid Jilani on Aug 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm

Reagan administration economist Art Laffer appeared on CNN’s Newsroom yesterday to debate health care with CAP Senior Fellow Judy Feder. At the height of the debate, Laffer offered a curious argument against health care reform:

LAFFER: I mean, if you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait until you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care done by the government

Watch it:

The reality is that we don’t have to “wait” for the government to take over Medicaid and Medicare because they are both already government-run programs.

Many opponents of a public health insurance option across the country don’t realize that we already have a number of highly successful government-run health care programs. At a recent town hall meeting in Simpsonville, South Carolina, Rep. Robert Inglis (R-SC) was approached by a constituent who demanded that he keep his “government hands out of Medicare.” Inglis tried to explain to the constituent that his coverage is “being provided by the government,” but the constituent refused to believe it.

Medicare, the government-run single-payer coverage system for the elderly, is particularly popular. A 2009 study by the Commonwealth Foundation found that Medicare recipients reported greater satisfaction with their plans than those in employer-sponsored coverage by wide margins. And Medicare’s status as a government program allows it to run without the need to generate profit, resulting in administrative costs that are a fraction of those of private plans.

Even though conservatives continually attack the government’s ability to run public health plans, they have tacitly admitted the popularity and effectiveness of programs like Medicare. Faced with an amendment by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) that would’ve eliminated Medicare, not a single member of Congress voted for it. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), another conservative who has railed against a government-run health care plan, actually denounced a public option in health care while declaring his support for Medicare on the very same day. Despite the chorus of attacks from the right, the public remains overwhelmingly in favor of the choice of government coverage.

Reflecting on Laffer’s remarks, Paul Krugman laments, “The prejudice against government seems to have become free-floating, unattached to any actual experience.”

Climate Progress

Top Utility-Fueled Senators Are Skeptical Of Clean Energy Reform

By Guest Blogger on Aug 5, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Our guest blogger is Stacy Morford, managing editor for SolveClimate.com.

capitol-lightsThe electric utility industry has been one of Congress’s top campaign contributers for years. Already in the still young 2009-2010 election cycle, it has contributed $2.4 million to congressional campaigns. During the 2007-2008 election cycle, when the Senate rejected the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, the industry gave $20.6 million.

As the Senate debate ramps up, the top ten Senate recipients of electric utility contributions so far this cycle have staked out positions on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act that range from skepticism to virulent opposition.

Byron Dorgan (D-ND): $70,200

Dorgan, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is the top recipient of campaign cash connected to electric utilities so far in the 2010 election cycle. He’s leery of the cap-and-trade approach, and he sees a future still powered by fossil fuels. His home state happens to have vast coal reserves. Dorgan wrote in a recent opinion article in the Bismarck Tribune that to protect the environment and make the nation less dependent on foreign oil, the U.S. should:

Establish caps on carbon that are accompanied by both adequate research and development funding and reasonable time lines for implementation to develop and commercialize technologies that will greatly reduce the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): $60,000

Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She criticized ACES for not promoting nuclear and oil and gas development. When her committee took up its own energy bill earlier this year, she pushed for a lower renewable energy standard of 15 percent by 2021, opening the Florida coast to oil drilling, creating a green bank that could heavily benefit nuclear development, and providing ample funding to Alaska’s natural gas pipeline project.

Richard Burr (R-NC): $55,449

Burr, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, believes in an “all options on the table” approach. He supports energy efficiency and renewable energy development, as well as continued oil exploration. He also believes nuclear “can and must be part of the energy solution if our country wants to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” Read more

Yglesias

America’s Complacency About Climate Change

By Matthew Yglesias on Aug 5, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Ezra Klein and Jesse Zwick at The Vine both discuss this University of Maryland survey which asks people to rate climate change as a priority from one (low) to ten (high) and then reports an average:

globalwarmingsupport-1

It’s perhaps not so surprising that Palestinians and Iraqis feel they have bigger fish to fry, but even they care more about the issue than Americans do. Conventional wisdom is that people don’t like the idea of economic sacrifice for environmental gain, especially during a recession, but China and India and Chile and Poland and Germany are all populated by people too. My guess would be that the difference is the presence of a large, well-financed, and influential denialist elite. But to test that you’d have to try to look at other countries with substantial denialist elites; I think the Czech Republic and Australia fit the bill but neither made the survey.

Politics

Freshman Democratic lawmaker ‘physically assaulted at a local event’ by activists.

By Guest Blogger on Aug 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm

As lobbyist-run groups encourage conservative activists to “rattle” members of Congress at local town hall events, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), the president of the freshman Democratic class has revealed that “at least one freshman Democrat” has already been “physically assaulted at a local event.” Connolly warned that conservative groups had taken things to a “dangerous level“:

“When you look at the fervor of some of these people who are all being whipped up by the right-wing talking heads on Fox, to me, you’re crossing a line,’ Connolly said. ‘They’re inciting people to riot with just total distortions of facts. They think we’re going to euthanize Grandma and the government is going to take over.”

Recent events have given congressman good reason to be “fearful for their safety.” Last week, a protester hung an effigy of freshman Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) outside his district office, and after a June 22 town hall meeting was disrupted by an “unruly mob” of tea party activists, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) had to be escorted to his car by police. ThinkProgress contacted Connolly’s office regarding the identity of the congressman who was physically assaulted, but we have not yet received a response.

– Ben Bergmann

Climate Progress

Unscientific America 2: Buy the book — and read it.

By Joe Romm on Aug 5, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Book CoverThe fate of the next 50 generations may well be determined in the next several months and the next several years.  Will Congress agree to a shrinking GHG cap and the clean energy transformation?  If not, you can scratch a global climate deal.  But even if the bill passes and a global deal is achieved — both will need to be continuously strengthened in coming years, as the increasingly worrisome science continues to inform the policy, just as in the case of the Montr©al Protocol on the ozone-depleting substances.

In short, the fate of perhaps the next 100 billion people to walk the Earth rests in the hands of scientists (and those who understand the science) trying to communicate the dire nature of the climate problem (and the myriad solutions available now) as well as the ability of the media, the public, opinion makers, and political leaders to understand and deal with that science.

And so what could be more timely — and disquieting — than a book titled Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future?  The book is by Chris Mooney, whose science blog was a major inspiration for me to pursue blogging, and scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum.

While it notably and presciently disses former TV meteorologist Watts for his unscientific obsession with pushing weather data in the climate debate (see “Unscientific America, Part 1: From the moon-landing deniers to WattsUpWithThat“), climate-saturated CP readers will be happy to know that very little of the book actually focuses on global warming.

Rather, this short, highly readable book is a survey of the sorry state of scientific understanding and communication in this country, ending with some proposals for improving the situation.  Here are some of the interesting/depressing factoids from the book:

Read more

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up