Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is making millions from a private coal company even as he fights public health efforts that would raise costs for the coal industry, Senate financial disclosure records reveal. Manchin’s first speech in Congress was an attack on the Environmental Protection Agency for trying to fight the crime of mountaintop removal mining. Manchin opposes EPA regulation of greenhouse pollution, produced disproportionately from burning coal. Last week, Manchin lashed out at Mayor Michael Bloomberg for the billionaire’s contribution to a campaign to shut down toxic coal-fired power plants. As Greenwire reports, his reckless boosterism for coal polluters is highly self-serving:
On his financial disclosures for 2009 and 2010, Manchin reported significant earnings from Enersystems Inc., a coal brokerage that he helped run before his political star rose. In the 19 months before winning his Senate seat in a hard-fought special election, Manchin reported operating income of $1,363,916 from Enersystems. His next disclosure showed $417,255 in Enersystems income.
Manchin defended the dirty coal income, saying there’s no conflict of interest because his fortune is in a “blind trust.”
Manchin’s critics back in West Virginia, who live with the devastation the corrupt coal industry has wreaked on the state’s land and people, aren’t convinced.
“I certainly think that his perspective is very much skewed because of his connections to industry,” Cindy Rank, a long-time opponent of mountaintop removal in West Virginia, told Greenwire.
“He’s been nothing but a mouthpiece for the coal industry his whole public life,” said Jim Sconyers, chairman of West Virginia’s Sierra Club chapter.
Manchin To McCain On Afghanistan: I Don’t Have Your Experience, But I Have ‘A Little Common Sense’ |
This week on the Senate floor, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said, “We can no longer, in good conscience, cut services and programs at home, raise taxes or — and this is very important — lift the debt ceiling in order to fund nation-building in Afghanistan.” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) then attacked Manchin, saying his remarks are characteristic of the “isolationist-withdrawal-lack-of-knowledge-of-history attitude that seems to be on the rise.” Manchin responded last night on CNN, saying he’s “proud to serve” with McCain and that he’s “a great American,” but added, “I don’t have the experience he has. But what I do have, like most West Virginians, is a little common sense.” Watch it:
Earlier this year, Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) released a bill called the CAP act, which would prevent the government from spending more than 20.6 percent of GDP in any given year (unless the cap is waived by a supermajority vote in Congress). As I laid out at the time, actually adhering to this cap would require huge cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and would keep federal spending below where it was during the Reagan administration, even though there are now tens of millions more seniors reliant on Social Security and Medicare than there were in the 1980′s.
“Today, I will be announcing my support for two proposals that I believe provide a good starting point and framework from which we can move forward,” he will say, according to excerpts released by his office. “But let me be also clear — one of my top priorities will be to make sure that whatever final debt fix emerges, it will keep our promises to our seniors by protecting Social Security and Medicare. I believe we can do this and cut our debt and deficits over time.”
In dollar terms, mandatory programs would be cut by nearly $630 billion in 2021. Social Security would be cut by $237 billion, Medicare by $161 billion, and Medicaid by $105 billion. As noted earlier, from 2013 through 2021, the cumulative cuts would total about $1.3 trillion in Social Security, $856 billion in Medicare, and $547 billion in Medicaid. If, instead of following the Corker-McCaskill formula for automatic cuts, all programs were cut by the same percentage, then all programs would be cut 14 percent in 2021 — or one of every seven dollars. Over the 2013-2021 period, the cuts would total $904 billion in Social Security, $602 billion in Medicare, and $386 billion in Medicaid.
As the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein put it, the CAP act is “arguably the most radically conservative reform that could be made to the federal budget. More extreme, by far, than Paul Ryan’s plan.” Yet, lawmakers think that they can enact it while simultaneously protecting the largest, most important federal programs. Corker announced yesterday that he wants to attach the CAP act to legislation that would raise the nation’s debt ceiling.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), the newest member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, claimed today that the coal industry doesn’t receive any government subsidies, unlike every other form of energy. The former governor of coal-state West Virginia, who famously fired a rifle at clean energy legislation in a campaign ad, argued that the Obama administration has “villainized” coal. In a hearing on energy markets, Manchin went on to criticize the Environmental Protection Agency — which has issued regulations to limit the catastrophic impact of mountaintop removal mining and the existential threat of global warming pollution — for putting up “roadblocks” on the “greatest source” of energy in the nation:
What I don’t understand is the subsidies. The subsidies of energy, whether it be to oil, gas, wind, solar, biofuels, ethanol. The only energy source — which is the greatest source that we have so far as we’re dependent on — is coal. It doesn’t get a penny of subsidies. But it’s been villainized by this administration and so many people and it’s the one we depend on the most. It gives back more than it takes. I can’t figure it out.
Watch it:
In reality, the coal industry is heavily subsidized by the federal and state governments, enjoying explicit subsidies of billions of dollars a year. The coal industry enjoys the freedom to emit pollution that poisons and kills 10,000 Americans a year, destroys the land and water of mining communities, and destabilizes our climate.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), the newest member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, claimed today that the coal industry doesn’t receive any government subsidies, unlike every other form of energy. The former governor of coal-state West Virginia, who famously fired a rifle at clean energy legislation in a campaign ad, argued that the Obama administration has “villainized” coal. In a hearing on energy markets, Manchin went on to criticize the Environmental Protection Agency — which has issued regulations to limit the catastrophic impact of mountaintop removal mining and the existential threat of global warming pollution — for putting up “roadblocks” on the “greatest source” of energy in the nation:
What I don’t understand is the subsidies. The subsidies of energy, whether it be to oil, gas, wind, solar, biofuels, ethanol. The only energy source — which is the greatest source that we have so far as we’re dependent on — is coal. It doesn’t get a penny of subsidies. But it’s been villainized by this administration and so many people and it’s the one we depend on the most. It gives back more than it takes. I can’t figure it out.
We’re trying to use it in so many different forms, in super-critical heating, and things of this sort. We’re running into roadblocks with the EPA from every turn that we go. We’re trying to use it in conjunction with our natural gas productions, and trying to look at the changing the fleet to compressed natural gas, I think that’s very doable. Do you all have a comment on why that one source of energy which is the most dependent upon in this nation has no types of subsidies but the others demand so subsidies?
Watch it:
In reality, the coal industry is heavily subsidized by the federal and state governments, enjoying explicit subsidies of billions of dollars a year, plus the indirect subsidy of free pollution that costs the United States 10,000 lives a year, destroys the land and water of mining communities, and destabilizes our climate. In September 2009, the Environmental Law Institute identified coal industry “subsidies of around $17 billion between 2002 and 2008″:
Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels ($14,097)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels. This credit has historically primarily benefited coal producers.
Characterizing Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains ($986) – IRC Section 631(c). Income from the sale of coal under royalty contract may be treated as a capital gain rather than ordinary income for qualifying individuals.
Exclusion of Benefit Payments to Disabled Miners ($438) – 30 U.S.C. 922(c). Disability payments out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund are not treated as income to the recipients.
Other-Fuel Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion ($323)- IRC Section 613. Taxpayers may deduct 10 percent of gross income from coal production.
Credit for Clean Coal Investment ($186)- IRC Sections 48A and 48B. Available for 20 percent of the basis of integrated gasification combined cycle property and 15 percent of the basis for other advanced coal-based generation technologies.
Special Rules for Mining Reclamation Reserves ($159) – IRC Section 468. This deduction is available for early payments into reserve trusts, with eligibility determined by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Solid Waste Management Act. The amounts attributable to mines rather than solid-waste facilities are conservatively assumed to be one-half of the total.
84-month Amortization Period for Coal Pollution Control ($102) – IRC Section 169(d)(5). Extends the amortization period used in calculating the deduction from the generally applicable 60-month period available for other types of pollution control facilities.
Expensing Advanced Mine Safety Equipment ($32) – IRC Section 179E. The costs of qualifying mine safety equipment may be expensed rather than recovered through depreciation.
Black Lung Disability Trust Fund ($1,035)- As industry excise tax payments did not sufficiently cover early benefits payments, the BLDTF was given “indefinite authority to borrow” from the U.S. General Fund, and bailed out for $6.498 billion, 13 percent of which is relevant to the 2002-2008 period.
In addition, Synapse Energy Economics found that the government subsidizes the coal industry through several other avenues:
Financial support for the World Bank and other international financial institutions that finance fossil fuel use and extraction. Since 1994, these institutions have provided $137 billion in direct and indirect financial support for new coal-fired power plants.
U.S. Treasury Department’s backing of tax-exempt bonds and federally subsidized taxable Build America Bonds for use in the electric sector. $81 billion in tax-exempt debt was issued between 2002 and 2006 for electric power, most for coal plants.
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service provision of loans, loan guarantees, and lien accommodations to public power companies that are investing in new or existing coal plants.
Tax credits, loans, and loan guarantees through the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2009, DOE issued $5.9 billion in loan guarantees for advanced coal projects.
Furthermore, cash-strapped state governments give millions of dollars in subsidies to coal, including $115 million from Kentucky, and $26 million from Virginia. In 2008, then-Gov. Manchin himself offered Appalachian Fuel $200 million in subsidies for a liquid coal plant.
Meanwhile, the health and environmental costs of mining and burning coal are staggering. “What’s been the healthcare cost of 47 tons per year of mercury from burning coal,” the Sierra Club asks, “that put 300,000 fetuses at risk for neurological damage each year?”
The coal industry was responsible for 2,237 megatons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent greenhouse pollution in 2008, 38 percent of the United States footprint. The cost of this “market externality” is between $60 and $600 billion every year, given expert estimates for the cost to human civilization of manmade climate change.
Manchin is correct that coal “doesn’t get a penny of subsidies” — the industry gets trillions of pennies, borrowed against our children’s future.
This morning, during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) — the only Democrat to support a Republican filibuster of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — said he supported repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell but voted against it to allow the military to repeal the ban on its own timetable:
MANCHIN: Again, I was only here three weeks…didn’t know much about the issue. It’s something that probably will be, it needs to be repealed and it will be repealed. But I was voting, basically on timeliness. I sat on two meetings of armed services both telling me, ‘it should be on our time table, not legislative time table.’ So I voted to let the military have it on their timetable….I made a decision based on that. [...]
What they were saying was, ‘we got fronts, we got a war in Afghanistan, we got 50 percent of our troops deployed, can you not wait until we get out of this?’
Watch it:
During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, however, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and the service chiefs all made the opposite argument: congressional repeal would allow the armed forces to implement the change on its own terms. If the Congress fails to act, however, a court ruling could force instantaneous change. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued after the vote, “If they are unable to do that, then as I’ve indicated in testimony and talking with you all, my greatest worry will be that then we are at the mercy of the courts and all of the lack of predictability that that entails.” Gates described Judge Virginia Phillips’ injunction of DADT in October as a “wake-up call” that the law could be struck down immediately without giving the military time to prepare to implement repeal.
Manchin, who prior to the election promised to support the ban if “battlefield commanders can certify it doesn’t hurt unit cohesion,” has had a hard time explaining his position. Following the vote, Manchin issued a statement apologizing for his opposition, “I would like to make clear that my concern is not with the idea of repealing DADT, but rather an issue of timing,” he said. “I truly understand that my position will anger those who believe repeal should happen now and for that I sincerely apologize.”
The Associated Press is reporting that Joe Manchin (D-WV) — who had previously told me that he didn’t “believe the rules should be changed until the battlefield commanders can certify it doesn’t hurt unit cohesion” — is now hinting that he would vote against lifting the ban in the lame duck session. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Manchin reiterated his concerns about lifting the ban during a time of war and the effect the change would have on military chaplains:
“They don’t believe that it should be invoked at a point of time when they’re engaged in combat, because it would be a hard transition for them,” Manchin said. “So, if someone’s trying to push that through with a vote quicker, it might not be prudent. I’m not sure if the votes would be there to do that.” [...]
“Do the clergy believe that this makes (it) harder for them to do the mission that they believe in, which is preaching the Gospel and the Bible as they believe, or does it kind of give them a pause, if you will,” Manchin said.
To be clear, the Pentagon’s Working Group survey met Manchin’s first requirement — that is, it concluded that repeal would not undermine unit cohesion — and addressed his new concerns.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen both urged Congress to lift the ban before the courts force the military to act at the turn of a dime and the Service Chiefs all testified that they would be able to effectively implement repeal during a time of war. Responding to Manchin’s question about the effect of repeal on the chaplains, all five Service Chiefs said that repeal would have a “small” effect on attrition.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace pressed West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin (D-WV) — who is running to fill Robert Byrd’s seat in the Senate — on his past support for the health care law yesterday, asking the governor if he regretted saying that he would have voted for the law just six months ago.
Manchin told Wallace that that he didn’t know what was in the bill when he told the National Governors Association on March 17, “I’d be for it. I think you’ve got to move the ball”:
WALLACE: You’re saying now that if you had known what was really in the bill, although last March you said you would have voted for it, you are now saying you would have voted against it?
MANCHIN: Correct. Knowing the existence as far as how reaching it had been, as far as, I would have. And I think many people didn’t know about the bill. It ends up 2,000 pages or more. Bottom line, the concept was great as far as pre-existing conditions, how do we make sure more people have affordable insurance, how do we take care of children … keeping children on insurance longer because of the market conditions. There are a lot of good parts to it. Why won’t we fix what is wrong with it and make it better.
Watch it:
Manchin, who has held many different positions on the health care law, had previously told Fox News that he would vote to repeal the entire law if it couldn’t be fixed. While some of the governor’s gripes about the 1099 provision have bipartisan support, his new found opposition to the abortion language and “the mandates” is deliberately nonspecific and haphazard.
The Washington Independent’s Jesse Zwick watched Gov. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) many flip flops during yesterday’s West Virginia Senate debate and wondered “What liberal views does Manchin still hold, and what, if anything, could he be relied upon to vote for in the Senate?” — something health care advocates and reporters have wondered for quite some time now. Because if Manchin has changed his views on tax cuts and cap and trade, he’s done a 360 and back again on the Affordable Care Act. Consider the following:
Supported parts of ACA during debate: “I’m not prepared to scrap the entire bill, there are parts that need changed,” he said, “but let me tell you, I’m not prepared to tell your child who had a pre-existing condition, that he or she can’t be covered. There’s a lot of good in the bill that basically Democrats and Republicans agree with.” [West Virginia Public Broadcasting, 10/18/2010]
Supported parts of ACA in radio ad: “One out of every four West Virginians under the age of 65 suffers from a pre-existing medical condition such as heart disease, cancer or asthma,” the narrator says in the new radio spot. The ad then switches to a recording of Raese saying, “I don’t believe that insurance companies be mandated to handle pre-existing conditions.” [The Hill, 10/18/2010]
Shot a hole through ACA in TV ad: “I’ll take on Washington and this administration to get the federal government off of our backs and out of our pockets,” Manchin says in the TV spot. “I’ll cut federal spending, and I’ll repeal the bad parts of ObamaCare.” [CNN, 10/11/2010]
Would repeal all of ACA: I still and have always been in support of health reform. If anybody believes that a child should be left off of their parents and also pre-existing conditions and small businesses and all those things should go uninsured, something is wrong in America. Now with that, the president’s plan — ‘Obamacare,’ as it’s been called — is far too reaching. It’s overreaching. It needs to have a lot of it repealed. But you can fix that. If you can’t fix that, repeal the whole thing. [Fox News, 10/11/2010]
Would repeal parts of ACA: “The Governor felt it was important to move the ball forward on healthcare reform and that something had to be done to help more working people obtain health insurance, so he said at the time that he would vote to do that. However, as more details have come out about what was included in the final version of the healthcare reform bill, there are several sections that he would now vote to repeal, including any provisions that allow for the funding of abortions and the provisions that are cumbersome to small businesses. He also believes people’s personal responsibility and healthcare choices should not be taken away by overreaching regulations. So knowing what he knows now, he would have fought for changes to the final version of the bill before voting and he would not have voted for it in its current form.” [Wonk Room, 9/28/2010]
Would have vote for ACA: “I’d be for [the Affordable Care Act]. I think you’ve got to move the ball. Ted is exactly right. You have to move this ball forward right wrong or indifferent. I have never, since I’ve been in the legislative process and since I’ve been governor, I’ve never gotten a perfect bill. I’ve never gotten a bill exactly the way I’ve wanted it….Let’s try, let’s try to make this. Bring us all in. Let’s make it work.” [National Governors Association, 3/17/2010]
Interestingly, Manchin — who is now leading his race in West Virginia — is no longer answering report queries about this exact position on the law.
The Hill’s Michael O’Brien is reporting that West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin (D-WV) — “who is in a tough fight for a Senate seat” and has previously said that he would repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act — is now insisting that he’d vote for repealing the entire law “if it can’t be fixed”:
DOOCY: I know a while back you did support the president’s reform of the health care system in the United States. You were behind it. Now, however…
MANCHIN: See, no I wasn’t. Let’s be accurate on that.
DOOCY: Well you, I’ll give you a chance. You were supportive of it. Now, you’re calling for repeal of part of it.
MANCHIN: I still and have always been in support of health reform. If anybody believes that a child should be left off of their parents and also pre-existing conditions and small businesses and all those things should go uninsured, something is wrong in America. Now with that, the president’s plan — ‘Obamacare,’ as it’s been called — is far too reaching. It’s overreaching. It needs to have a lot of it repealed. But you can fix that. If you can’t fix that, repeal the whole thing.
Watch it:
In September, after the Wonk Room posted a video showing Manchin saying he would have voted for the Affordable Care Act if he had been in Congress, his campaign admitted that “he said at the time that he would vote to do that.” His staff told us that Manchin opposed only “several sections” of the law “including any provisions that allow for the funding of abortions and the provisions that are cumbersome to small businesses.” “He also believes people’s personal responsibility and healthcare choices should not be taken away by overreaching regulations,” the campaign said.
During a March 17 panel on health care at the National Governors Association, however, Manchin said, “I’d be for it” when asked if he would support the health bill. “I think you’ve got to move the ball,” he said. “I have never, since I’ve been in the legislative process and since I’ve been governor, I’ve never gotten a perfect bill. I’ve never gotten a bill exactly the way I’ve wanted it. … Let’s try, let’s try to make this. Bring us all in. Let’s make it work.”
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is making millions from a private coal company even as he fights public health efforts that would raise costs for the coal industry, Senate financial disclosure records reveal. Manchin’s first speech in Congress was an attack on the Environmental Protection Agency for trying to fight the crime of mountaintop removal mining. Manchin opposes EPA regulation of greenhouse pollution, produced disproportionately from burning coal. Last week, Manchin lashed out at Mayor Michael Bloomberg for the billionaire’s contribution to a campaign to shut down toxic coal-fired power plants. As Greenwire reports, his reckless boosterism for coal polluters is highly self-serving:
The Associated Press is reporting that Joe Manchin (D-WV) — who had previously told me that he didn’t “believe the rules should be changed until the battlefield commanders 
The Washington Independent’s Jesse Zwick 
