Tag: nebraska
'More Than A Little Stupid': Republicans Try To Kill Renewable Energy

'More Than A Little Stupid': Republicans Try To Kill Renewable Energy

Wyoming is the second windiest state, after Nebraska. It's obvious why the wind power industry is investing $10 billion there. And it's hard to see why any state politician would oppose this. But some have. Wyoming is one of those fossil-fuel producing states in which so-called conservatives feel obligated — or are paid — to stop competition from clean energy. Texas is another.

Wyoming State Sen. Larry Hicks proposed a temporary ban on renewable energy projects. "It does one thing: puts a moratorium on wind and solar for the next five years," he said. "It's a simple little bill."

A "simple," five-year plan? How do you say, "Aw, shucks" in Russian?

Hicks swiftly diverted blame to California: "Our friends on the 'left coast' with their renewable portfolio demands, eliminating fossil fuels and moving in a direction that's unsustainable."

We can't untie this knot of confused ideology. But let's point out that renewable energy is the only kind of energy that is, by definition, sustainable. Wyoming may have coal, oil and gas. But it has wind forever.

This hostility toward wind power is even weirder in Texas. Texas harvests more electricity from wind than any other state, or nearly 28 percent of all wind-generated electricity in the U.S. In one recent week, nearly half of Texas's electricity came from solar and wind power.

The key for these renewables is batteries that can store power when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Texas has been crowned "ground zero" for a U.S. battery boom. Last year it switched on more power stored in batteries than California did.

Texas was expected to double its storage capacity this year — that is, until Donald Trump slapped huge tariffs on China. More than two-thirds of imported batteries come from China.

In March, the Texas Senate passed a mandate that half of all new power capacity come from sources other than battery storage. In other words, at least 50 percent of all new power plant capacity had to be produced from coal, natural gas, and oil. (The natural gas industry needed propping.)

Back in Wyoming, lawmakers wedded to fossil fuels are complaining that large wind and solar projects are fundamentally changing the look of Wyoming's wide-open spaces. That's ignoring the aesthetics of Wyoming's coal pits, wide open craters that stretch for miles.

Wyoming is over 63 times the size of Rhode Island, with less than half the population of the Ocean State. There are dozens of wind turbines in Rhode Island, onshore and off. More are planned with minimal complaint. Wyoming could easily accommodate new wind projects under its big sky.

There does exist public support for clean energy in Wyoming, which is why Hicks' initiative failed. Gov. Mark Gordon tried to bridge the differences by endorsing an "all of the above energy strategy." He wants to keep Wyoming as "the energy state" but also to address climate change by developing clean renewables.

The far-right Freedom Caucus went after Gordon for acknowledging climate change. It introduced a bill designed to stop the state from pursuing any carbon reduction targets and titled it "Make Carbon Dioxide Great Again."

A pragmatic Republican, Gordon called such proposals as "a little bit stupid."

The bottom line is that Wyoming continues to develop wind energy projects. The Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project, now under construction near Rawlins, will be the nation's largest wind farm.

Much of what happens from here on in depends on Washington. The recently passed House bill strips away subsidies for renewables. How it fares in the Senate remains to be seen. Suffice it to say, slowing America's move to cleaner and also cheaper energy is more than a little bit stupid.

Froma Harrop is an award-winning journalist who covers politics, economics, and culture.She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Mike Flood of Nebraska

Struggling To Fund Trump Tax Scam, House GOP Urges 'Sacrifice'

President Donald Trump on Thursday met with House Republican leaders and laid out his demands to cut taxes for the rich, as well as his proposal to end taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security.

Trump's tax proposal could cost as much as $11 trillion—yes, trillion with a T—over the next 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that seeks to reduce the federal budget deficit. It's an astronomical number that, without corresponding cuts, would make the debt at least 132 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States, according to the CRFB.

Because the procedural mechanism Republicans want to use to pass Trump's policy agenda requires that legislation generally not add to the federal debt, that means Republicans would have to offset the tax cuts with massive amounts of cuts elsewhere in the budget.

And even GOP lawmakers are admitting the cuts they’ll need to make will be painful for the American people.

"It will be littered with a collection of ideas, some of which Americans are going to really not be for, but hey, if we don't sacrifice, if we don't understand that this is going to be a painful process, nothing’s going to change," Republican Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska said in an interview with Bloomberg on Thursday, referring to the forthcoming GOP budget that will be used to pass Trump's tax-cut agenda.

“My message to the American people is: We as a nation, as Americans, have to recognize that this is such a big problem—our debt—that we’re going to have to say no to some programs that we like but we simply can’t afford,” he added.

Republicans have been circulating proposed cuts, including deeply slashing Medicaid—which insures more than 72 million low-income Americans, or more than 20 percent of the U.S. population.

Also on the list? Axing tax breaks to make child care and higher education more affordable. Major cuts to food stamps. Taxing scholarship money. And curtailing employer transportation benefits that make commuting more affordable.

Of course, pain for the American people would come only if Republicans pass the legislation, which is in doubt.

After meeting behind closed doors for five hours on Thursday, House Republicans still don't have an agreed-upon framework for how to move forward, Politicoreported.

That comes after House Republicans couldn't agree to a framework during a recent three-day retreat.

And even if they do figure out a framework, getting it passed will be a separate story since the draconian cuts necessary to cut taxes for the rich would politically damage GOP lawmakers in swing seats.

Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York is expected to soon be confirmed as United Nations ambassador, meaning that Republicans will then have just 217 seats in the House. In other words, for months, their leadership won’t be able to lose a single House vote if they want this tax bill to pass.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Do Kansas And Nebraska Polls Mean More Bad News For Trump?

Do Kansas And Nebraska Polls Mean More Bad News For Trump?

Saturday’s Iowa Selzer poll showing Vice President Kamala Harris ahead in Iowa 47-44 isn’t the only poll suggesting that something big is happening in our country.

Donald Trump won Iowa in 2020 by an eight-point margin. If Selzer’s numbers hold up, it would make an 11-point swing toward Harris in the state.

In Kansas, the Kansas Speak poll by the Docking Institute at Fort Hays State University found Trump winning the state by a meager 5-point margin, 48-43. Trump won the state in 2020 by 15. If the poll is right, it would mark a 10-point shift, similar to Iowa.

For reference, in 2020 the poll predicted a 14.4 percent Trump victory. He won the state by 14.6 percent.

And Siena recently polled Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District for The New York Times, finding Harris beating Trump 54-42, or 12 points. Nebraska allocates a single electoral vote to the winner of each of the state’s three congressional districts (including its "blue dot" Omaha district), and Joe Biden won it 52-46 in 2020. If the Times is right, that’s a six-point shift to the left in yet another midwestern rural-ish district.

There is something happening in rural America, in exactly the kind of districts that Trump and Republicans are depending as the foundation of their electoral chances.

And it all comes down to women.

“Independent voters, who had consistently supported Trump in the leadup to this election, now break for Harris. That’s driven by the strength of independent women, who back Harris by a 28-point margin, while independent men support Trump, but by a smaller margin,” the Des Moines Register reported, digging into the Selzer poll’s crosstabs. “Similarly, senior voters who are 65 and older favor Harris. But senior women support her by a more than 2-to-1 margin, 63 percent to 28 percent, while senior men favor her by just two percentage points, 47 percent to 45 percent.”

Those Kansas and Nebraska results only make sense if that same dynamic is playing out in the broader midwest.

And if it is? Look out, because this election will look a lot different than everyone has been assuming thus far.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

GOP Legislator Torpedoes Trump's Nebraska Electoral Gambit

GOP Legislator Torpedoes Trump's Nebraska Electoral Gambit

Nebraska is among the few states in the U.S. that splits its electoral votes, and the area around Omaha — which has one electoral vote — has been leaning Democrat in recent years.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been urging Nebraska to abandon that system and switch to a winner-take-all format.

But Nebraska State Sen. Mike McDonnell, a former Democrat turned Republican, is, according to the New York Times, pushing back against the proposal.

In an official statement on Monday, September 23, McDonnell said, "In recent weeks, a conversation around whether to change how we allocate our Electoral College votes has returned to the forefront. I respect the desire of some of my colleagues to have this discussion, and I have taken time to listen carefully to Nebraskans and national leaders on both sides of the issue. After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change."

McDonnell, according to the Times, said he told Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, "I will not change my long-held position and will oppose any attempted changes to our Electoral College system before the 2024 election."

The Nebraska Examiner's Aaron Sanderford notes that "McDonnell's no on winner-take-all leaves Republicans in Nebraska's officially nonpartisan legislature with no path to overcoming a promised filibuster unless a Democrat or nonpartisan senator defects."

"Part of the GOP urgency is wrapped in national polling that shows a close race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee," Sanderford reports. "Some political observers have argued the 2nd District could break a 269-269 Electoral College tie. Few Democrats were surprised that the fate of winner-take-all largely swung on McDonnell, a former Omaha fire union president who switched to the GOP this spring after facing political pushback from Democrats for backing abortion restrictions."

Sanderford adds, "Several said the abortion debate should have shown Republicans that McDonnell is largely immovable once he has made a controversial position clear. McDonnell said when he switched parties that he would not support winner-take-all. Others said he did what helped him most politically.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World