Ways and Means

Transparency Bill Proposed Solution to Public Employee Pension Problems

by Kathryn Ciano on February 9, 2011

in Economy, Labor

At a House subcommittee meeting discussing one proposed solution for public employee pensions, a transparency bill designed to trace federal and state funds set aside to cover pension guarantees. Lawmakers and media types weigh in on taxes, Social Security, and how their interest groups are affected by pension cures.

Paul Ryan enters fresh from Bernanke’s hearing, to quote the Federal Reserve chair’s uncertainty as to when and how public employee pensions will be paid. This echoes Grover Norquist’s statement earlier in the same conference that everyone’s answer to the question of the day — Will public employees get the pensions promised them by their states? — is: We’re pretty sure.

Covering public employee pensions has become an enormous problem for states unable to cover even the going expense of running a government. California offered IOU’s to some employees this year, and state employees whose pensions are guaranteed by the state are subsisting on promises and guarantees, but many have not been paid. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed this transparency bill as he exited the office of governor, according to a presenting Ways and Means committee member.

Rep. Darrell Issa reminds the room that we will all pay for any failure. If one city or state fails, the entire country will bear the burden. Public employee pensions may not rise to the highest level on some conservative dockets, but as baby boomers retire, public budgets are braced to absorb the shock wave anticipated when the pension crisis hits.

As with every area of the economy, uncertainty quashes growth. As go public employees relying on a lifetime of pension pay-ins, so goes America, relying on receiving checks from social security, not IOU’s.

WTO-UNEP report gives the nod — sort of — to carbon border taxes

by Fran Smith on June 26, 2009

in Environment, Global Warming, Trade

Today, the World Trade Organization, together with the UN Environment Programme posted a report on trade and climate change that outlines how carbon border taxes may be consistent with WTO rules. It is a very careful discussion of relevant articles, their intent and interpretation, and related WTO cases (though no case has specifically dealt with climate change).

In some cases, the WTO-UNEP discussion reads like “on the one hand, and on the other.” The report is bound to provide environmental groups with ammunition to argue that CO2 border taxes are WTO-compliant. However, the issues and their legal precedents are not that clear-cut. What’s more likely is that the introduction of border taxes or similar measures will open up a flood of retaliatory actions and disputes.

Here’s a summary from the report of the relevant GATT and WTO rules:

If a particular measure is inconsistent with one of the core provisions of the GATT (e.g. Articles I, III or XI), it could still be justified under Article XX. Article XX lays out a number of specific instances in which WTO members may be exempted from GATT rules. Two exceptions are of particular relevance to the protection of the environment: paragraphs (b) and (g) of Article XX. According to these two paragraphs, WTO members may adopt policy measures that are inconsistent with GATT disciplines, but necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health (paragraph (b)), or relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (paragraph (g)).

The report was issued just as the U.S. House of Representatives was to begin consideration of the Waxman-Markey energy bill, which, according to Inside Trade (subscription required), will include a Ways and Means Manager’s Amendment with provisions for carbon border adjustments to address competitive and so-called leakage issues.

“Leveling the playing field” with border taxes (read “bring down the economy”)

by Fran Smith on June 25, 2009 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, International

In Washington, beware any proposal that attempts to “level the playing field.” What is usually meant is hobbling competition with restrictive rules and regulations that often raise costs for consumers. On the international playing field, such “leveling” can have broader disastrous consequences.

That’s likely to be the case with the House Ways and Means’ misguided proposals to impose carbon taxes on imports from countries that haven’t taken stringent measures to control greenhouse gas emissions.

It turns out that the huge and complex energy bill – the Waxman-Markey bill – is scheduled to be voted on Friday. It sets up a “cap and trade” system by setting a limit on carbon emissions and issuing tradable allowances. The bill got some carbon-intensive industries realizing the high costs they would have to pay under the program and then pass on to their customers. They and environmental groups eager to suppress energy use talked about “leakage,” that is, firms in countries that didn’t have strict emission standards would be able to offer lower prices, and other firms might move to those countries as well. Their solution? Hit those foreign imports with a hefty tax too, and Ways and Means is figuring out a way to do that.

China, India, and other powerhouse developing countries are the main bugbears. Yet going down that road to protect domestic industries could put our fragile economy in a tailspin. CEI and others have written about the increased costs to consumers from suppressing the use of fossil fuels that supply more than 80 percent of U.S. energy. At a time when many families are struggling with bills, adding these new costs will be a hefty burden. Assessing carbon taxes on imports from certain countries would mean that consumers would get no relief from those increased costs.

Perhaps the main threat, however, is to the whole economy of the U.S. Countries like China and India won’t sit back and take this blow to their exports. They will likely retaliate with trade measures against the U.S. possibly affecting a broader range of products. In fact, China’s top climate change official Li Gao had suggested that countries importing goods from China might themselves pay for the emissions created in their production. Those large developing countries point out that they have only recently been experiencing rapid industrialization and economic growth, in contrast to the developed world, and do not want to be penalized and have their growth curtailed, as millions of their people are still living at a subsistence level.

The U.S. border measures – and perhaps the free allowances offered under cap-and-trade –will undoubtedly face challenges in the World Trade Organization, which can go on for years and further disrupt the world trading system.

Also, the threat is real that retaliation might be initiated outside the trading system. Currently, China holds almost one-quarter of all U.S. debt held by foreign countries. Suppose China threatened to dump some of its holdings?

Let’s hope policymakers have more sense than to vote “yea” for this economically destructive bill.