Bysiewicz Accountable Plan

Watch the videos, learn more, and get engaged at http://www.susansplan.
com
Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
Executive Summary
The middle class is facing an economic calamity in America. Corporate special interests, Wall Street, and their Republican allies are largely the cause and the impediment to change. Its time that Congress listened to the middle class and held Wall Street and the corporate special interests accountable. My plan will do just that. It makes Wall Street repay some of the money they made on the backs of the middle class through high-risk gambling, and it uses these funds to help homeowners who have been dragged down in the economic disaster Wall Street created. It also returns our focus in this country to the middle class: giving them the tax breaks, not the big corporations, and giving them the loudest voice in Washington, not the special interests, lobbyists, and incumbent Members of Congress who exist in a cozy Washington cocoon. And it gets our focus back to creating jobs, opportunity, and security for the middle class in this country: through a real energy plan that will create millions of jobs in clean American energy and free us from foreign energy supplied by our enemies; by realigning our military strength to a smarter posture that meets the needs of the 21st century; and by putting in place a coherent plan on immigration that is fair to American taxpayers, practical, and lasting, and can create millions more jobs and higher wages for Americas.
1 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
Components of the Accountability Plan

Hold Wall Street Accountable: Wall Street banks committed fraud by selling sub-prime mortgage derivatives at the same time they were betting against those derivatives with credit default swaps. They took outrageous risks on highly leveraged bets. That cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and brought our economy to the brink of collapse. We should make Wall Street repay this money through a transaction tax on short term high volume trading that harms normal investors. With these funds we can provide mortgage relief to middle class families whose homes are worth less than they owe. Approximate Net Cost/Savings over Ten Years: saves $1.4 trillion End Corporate Welfare: We need to end corporate welfare by eliminating all special interest tax breaks and the hedge fund loophole that allows speculators to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. We also need to get end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and fix the Alternative Minimum Tax that makes many middle class families pay a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans. Approximate Net Cost/Savings over Ten Years: saves at least $1 trillion Real Reform in Washington No More Half Measures: There should be a permanent ban on earmarks; no more contributions, bundling, or gifts from lobbyists; public disclosure of all meetings with lobbyists; a five year ban on Members of Congress and staff from becoming lobbyists; a constitutional amendment to prevent campaign donations from corporations; independent commissions to draw Congressional districts; and a ban on campaign-style mail financed by taxpayers. Approximate Net Cost/Savings over Ten Years: no net costs however, real reform that reined in lobbying and corporate influence would likely eliminate a significant amount of wasteful spending and lobbyistdriven pork, and result in substantial savings. Energy Independence: There is only one way to achieve energy independence: more renewable energy, much more. The United States spends over a billion dollars on foreign oil every single day. This accounts for well over half of our trade deficit, and 40 percent comes from dangerous and unstable countries. Our electricity comes largely from coal, which will only increase in cost over time. In addition it also drives up health care and environmental costs. We should have a national policy to provide Clean Energy Contracts for clean, renewable, American energy. This would be a major part of the solution to free us from these fossil fuel sources, and would create millions of jobs and billions of dollars of economic growth. Approximate Net Cost/Savings over Ten Years: costs $450 billion Reduce Troop Levels Abroad: While America needs to continue funding our fight against terrorism, we should immediately bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of our forces from Europe and Japan. Doing so will allow us to reduce the defense budget and align our military posture to the real needs of the 21st century. We can replace much of our worldwide capacity to project power and protect our interests abroad through increased naval strength, and realize savings from bringing our troops home. Approximate Net Cost/Savings over Ten Years: no net costs, likely substantial savings
Immigration Reform: Give illegal immigrants already living here a path to legal status, or citizenship for those who have been here longer and are established in their communities, as long as they have a job and pay taxes. Expand legal immigration by allowing students from foreign countries who go to college in the United States to stay here and work, and allow temporary foreign workers for jobs that go unfilled by legal residents -- though those jobs must be posted for Americans to seek employment first. We can grow our economy while ensuring the American dreams remains open to all. Approximate Net Cost/Savings over Ten Years: saves $50 billion Taken together, this plan gets our focus back onto the middle class. It would make sure that the middle class gets all of the fairness, opportunity, help, and voice in our country that they deserve. And it would generate millions of new jobs in America, improve our security, and actually improve our debt by about $2 trillion over ten years.
Plan Component Hold Wall Street Accountable End Corporate Welfare Real Reform in Washington Energy Independence Reduce Troop Levels Abroad Immigration Reform Total
Net Cost/Savings Saves $1.4 Trillion Saves $1 Trillion No Net Costs Costs $450 Billion No Net Costs Saves $50 Billion Saves $2 Trillion
Table of Contents
Holding Wall Street Accountable While Helping Middle Class Homeowners Page 5
Ending Corporate Welfare and Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Helping the Middle Class Real Reform in Washington the Kind They Wont Like
Page 11
Page 15
Supporting Clean American Energy
Page 21
National Defense: Smarter and Stronger
Page 27
A Fair, Lasting, and Practical Solution on Immigration
Page 31
Holding Wall Street Accountable While Helping Middle Class Homeowners

It is time to hold Wall Street accountable for the damage they have done to the American people - to our jobs, our economy, and the very homes we live in. Wall Street banks committed fraud by selling sub-prime mortgage derivatives at the same time that they were betting against those very derivatives with credit default swaps. They gambled on highly leveraged bets, knowing that it was only a matter of time before it all fell apart, but hoping they could make a quick buck and get out of the way in time. Instead, middle class families were the ones left to foot the bill when the music stopped. That greed and recklessness cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and brought our economy to the brink of collapse. The housing market has been the epicenter of this calamity for the middle class. Home prices have declined one-third in the last 5 years, with a total loss of home equity of $6.6 trillion. That has led to almost 15 million homeowners owing more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, 3.5 million homes in the foreclosure process, and 6 million people who have already lost their homes.i More than 100,000 Connecticut residents are underwater or nearly underwater on their mortgages today.ii Wall Street caused this pain. Wall Street should finally be held accountable, and they should pay to help the people who have been hurt. We can accomplish this in two steps: first, rein in the gambling behaviors on Wall Street and, second, make them repay the money they cost taxpayers by providing relief to middle class families whose homes are now worth less than they owe. Step One: A Transaction Tax A financial transaction tax is a very small tax on each trade of a financial asset, like a stock or a bond. Many prominent economists, business heads, and financial sector leaders of all political stripes have called for a transaction tax over the years. After the 1987 Wall Street crash, Senator Bob Dole and the first President Bush endorsed it; after the collapse of 2007, the New York Times highlighted it as a top idea of 2008iii. Now its time to implement it. A transaction tax on Wall Street would achieve several important goals.. The first major benefit is that it puts the brakes on Wall Street gambling on short-term, high volume trading by making it more expensive to do many small, speculative trades every day. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, this kind of trading is not performing any valuable function for our economy, either by putting capital to productive uses or by hedging against long-term financial risks it is simply allowing big banks to engage in casino-style gambling. Furthermore, Wall Streets reliance on churning through these kinds of short-term bets was a critical factor in the recent financial crisis, and it is clear that slowing down this activity could help prevent a future crisis.iv A transaction tax would, as Nobel Prize-winning economist James Tobin said, throw some sand in the well-greased wheels of speculation.v A transaction tax is also fair because it makes Wall Street pay more of its fair share. This is an industry that handles a minimum of $50 trillion worth of transactions in a year. Goldman Sachs Group gave out $16.7 billion in bonuses for one year, even in the midst of the Great Recession. As John Bogle, Founder and retired CEO of the Vanguard Group, has said about the fairness and the economic benefit of a transaction tax: The financial institutions that control 75 percent of all 5 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
stocks are tax free. Pension funds are tax-free. Mutual funds are about half tax-deferred, but the other half is run by managers who pay no attention to taxes. So weve got these two giant industries basically operating without any frictional costs when they trade stocks back and forth and that helps explain why weve had this orgy of speculation. No question about that. So I like the idea of a transaction cost [tax].vi The other major benefit of a transaction tax is that it holds Wall Street banks accountable by making them pay back a part of the money they have made, some of it through their reckless and criminal behavior. A very moderate transaction tax is estimated to produce at least $150 billion in annual revenue, and quite possibly more.vii In this time of fiscal austerity, we can use these funds aggressively to help Americans in need and restore economic stability. Therefore, we should adopt the plan developed by economists Dean Baker and Robert Pollin: under this plan, we would put in place tax rates on Wall Street trading at 0.5 percent on a transaction, or 0.25 percent on each side, for stocks and equities; 0.02 percent on bonds; 0.5 percent on options; 0.01 percent on foreign exchange spot transactions; 0.02 percent on each transaction in futures and forwards; and 0.015 percent on swaps.viii To ensure fairness to investors, we should adapt the plan slightly to exempt tax-favored retirement accounts, which should still allow revenue of $150 billion. It is worth noting that big Wall Street banks that oppose a transaction tax have made several arguments against it but none of them hold water. One argument is that in a world of mobile capital, if you tax financial transactions, either the tax could not be enforced or the capital will simply go elsewhere. This flies in the face both of logic (as argued by several expertsix) and experience. The fact is that a securities transfer tax previously existed in the U.S. between 1914 and 1966, and we built up extremely healthy financial markets.x The U.K has had a tax on stock trades for decades, and the U.K.s volume of trading has grown robustly with no sign of capital fleeing for other markets.xi In fact, as the IMF has pointed out, many G-20 countries currently impose some sort of financial transactions tax in the same range as what is proposed here.xii Clearly, a transaction tax is both enforceable and consistent with a healthy market. Another argument is that Wall Street banks will just pass the cost of the tax on to average investors. This is also a misdirection. Such a tax would make little difference to those people who want to hold stocks as a long-term investment the tax overwhelmingly impacts those who make lots of trades in high volume, which is very rarely the small investor. Third, and perhaps most importantly, as argued last year in the Wall Street Journal, while it is true that a transaction tax could raise costs slightly for those who invest in mutual funds, one of the benefits of a transaction tax is that it pushes investors away from managed funds like mutual funds into cheaper index funds, which most experts believe are better for small investors and which actually perform better than the more expensive managed alternatives.xiii And Wall Street firms, while decrying the cost to investors of a potential transaction tax, actually support a fee that has an even larger impact on costs to investors and which the firms simply use to market their (less effective) managed funds.xiv
So, lets be clear: when Wall Street banks protest their concerns for the small investor, they are using a fig leaf to obscure their real concern about their profitable high-volume, short-term trading business, and they could help small investors simply by lowering their own fees. And again, under this plan, we exempt tax-favored retirement accounts. Step Two: Making Wall Street Pay to Help Homeowners The middle class is being crushed inside an iron triangle of rising debt, high unemployment, and shrinking assets: American student loan debt is over $1 trillion, unemployment has stayed at or above nine percent in Connecticut since December 2009, and household wealth has fallen by $7.7 trillion since the start of the recession.xv By far the biggest cause of economic pain, and the keystone of the economic crisis, has been the housing market implosion. With the one-third decline in home prices, almost 15 million homeowners are now underwater. Six trillion dollars of the loss of household wealth has come from the decline in home values. So any solution to our economic crisis must address the mortgage debt problem. While there are many steps we could take to help homeowners, by far the most effective would be to reduce the amount of principal that people who are underwater have to pay on their mortgages. As the New York Times recently wrote: the economy will not recover until housing recovers - and that won't happen without a robust effort to curb foreclosures by modifying troubled mortgage loansreducing principal is a better solution than lowering interest rates, because it reduces payments and restores equity. Bankers resist, because it could force them to recognize losses they would prefer to delay. The administration has resisted, in part because principal reductions are seen as rewarding reckless borrowers. But many of today's troubled borrowers were not reckless. Rather, they are collateral damage in a bust that has wiped out equity and hammered jobs, turning what were reasonable debt levels into unbearable burdens.xvi Paying off some of the principal for homeowners who are underwater will help to relieve the pressure from each side of the iron triangle: it will lower the debt overhang on the middle class, increase equity and reduce foreclosure to preserve Americans financial assets, and relieve cash flows for households which will enable them to resume spending and lower unemployment. It is the most important thing we can do to take our country out of the downward spiral in housing that has prevented a real recovery and to boost consumer spending and confidence. It is also especially fair in Connecticut, which has one of the healthiest ratios in the country of outstanding loans to home values, meaning that Connecticut homeowners did not seek a lot of reckless loans.xvii We should therefore use the funds from holding Wall Street accountable to help homeowners who are underwater by paying down principal. Wall Street caused this problem, and Wall Street should pay for it. Mortgage Principal Reduction 7 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
We should create a program, based on the Homeownership Vesting Plan, invented by noted economist Mark Zandi to reduce principal and get homeowners above water.xviii In this plan, qualifying homeowners would have their mortgages split into two pieces: A 30-year, fixed-rate FHA-insured loan with a balance equal to 97.5 percent of the homes current appraised value. A non-amortizing, no-interest loan from the Treasury, with a balance equal to the difference between the homeowners original loan amount and the new FHA loan.
In other words, there would now be one loan for the actual current value of the house (or just below at 97.5 percent) and a separate loan for the added amount of what the house used to be worth (which is also the amount that the homeowner is under water). The paydown mechanism then becomes relatively simple. The homeowner makes regular mortgage payments on his or her new FHA loan reflecting the current value of the house. For each year that the homeowner stays current on the FHA loan, a fifth of the balance owed to the Treasury on the other loan would be paid off out of the funds generated by the transaction tax on Wall Street. Thus, after five years of making their mortgage payments and on a much more fair amount that is just under the real current value of their home a homeowner would have the second loan paid off for them, and would have only a reasonable, affordable FHA loan going forward. The original mortgage owner would then own a new FHA loan, and would get a payment from the Treasury (paid for by the Wall Street funds) equal to the difference between the original loan amount and the FHA loan. If the homeowner defaulted on the FHA loan during the five-year vesting period, the non-vested portion of the Treasury loan would be repaid first; then the mortgage owner would receive the remainder of the foreclosure proceeds. In order to give an incentive to mortgage services to handle the administrative costs of putting this plan in place, they would receive $1,000 for each loan modified in this way. This is important because mortgage servicers usually lack incentives to modify loans: most agreements usually call for a modification to occur only if it is in the best interest of the investors in these mortgage-backed securities, and those calculations are extremely complex. This has been a major impediment to getting modifications done. Another impediment to modifications has been that during the housing bubble, two-thirds of subprime loans had piggyback second mortgages, which allowed them to avoid paying private mortgage insurance. The problem is that second mortgage owners can now veto any modification. Their lien may be essentially worthless, since house price declines have more than wiped out their interest in the home, but they still must be paid something to obtain their consent. So, under the Homeownership Vesting Plan, second-lien holders are given twenty-five cents on the dollar to get out of the way of the modification. This removes a major obstacle by giving these lien holders some value that they can recapture, so it represents a win-win for everyone. The Homeownership Vesting Plan applies to mortgages for owner-occupied residences that were originated between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007, had original loan amounts below the current FHA loan limit, were unaffordable at origination, as defined by a front-end, debt-toincome ratio exceeding 30 percent, and a cumulative loan-to-value ratio of over 90 percent, meet 8 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
the current underwriting criteria of the FHA Secure program, and for which the homeowner owns no other residences. Zandi originally estimated that 3.75 million homeowners would qualify for this plan. And while the difficulties of contacting troubled homeowners and various impediments common to all loan modification plans might decrease the number who actually participate, it is clear that using this plan, we could still help millions of Americans who are struggling. Updating the original cost estimates for todays figures yields a program cost of approximately $120 billion, including the costs of paying down the underwater principal through the Treasury loans and the 2.5% that serves as a down payment on the modified FHA Secure loans. It also includes the incentive payments to mortgage servicers and second-lien holders and all administrative costs and interest. Zandi estimated that even if only half of the qualified homeowners were included in the original plan, it would prevent 1.7 million loan defaults, forestalling a decline of 6 percentage points in home prices, and preserve $1.1 trillion in household wealth. This would in turn stabilize the housing market and generate a tremendous amount of greater potential consumer spending in our economy to improve economic growth. Summary and Conclusion Home prices have declined one-third in the last 5 years, there are almost 15 million homeowners underwater, 3.5 million homes in the foreclosure process, and 6 million people who have already lost their homes. We must address this economic calamity for the middle class to have any hope of economic recovery. A small tax on Wall Street trades would have three major benefits: slow down the casinostyle high-volume trading that helped lead to the financial collapse; create more fair taxation for an industry that handles $50 trillion in transactions annually; and hold Wall Street banks accountable by generating $150 billion each year to help homeowners and our economy. Reducing principal on mortgages is the most important thing that we can do to help homeowners and turn the economy around, because it will slow foreclosures, stabilize housing prices, keep millions of Americans out of financial turmoil, and free homeowner cash-flow to boost consumption. We should adopt an adapted version of the Zandi plan to pay down the principal for qualified homeowners. This could directly help millions of homeowners, and indirectly help millions more by stabilizing home prices and keeping them above water. We easily can pay for this plan with the transaction tax on Wall Street the total plan is estimated to cost $120 billion. Enacting these proposals would provide relief to millions of middle class homeowners who are in trouble through no fault of their own, reverse the downward spiral in housing prices that is sapping our chance of a real recovery, boost consumer spending to fuel economic growth, and rein in some of the worst behavior on Wall Street that led to the collapse. And it would do all of it under one simple principle: Wall Street created this mess, and now Wall Street should be held accountable and pay to fix it. 9 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
i NY Times Editorial, August 21, 2011 ii http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2011/11/underwater-over-100k-ct-homeow.html iii http://www.cepr.net/documents/fst-facts-myths-12-10.pdf iv New York Times Editorial, November 27, 2009 v New York Times Editorial, November 27, 2009 vi http://www.cepr.net/documents/ftt-support.pdf vii http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ftt-revenue-2009-12.pdf viii http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ftt-revenue-2009-12.pdf ix http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/wall_street_tax.html x http://www.cepr.net/documents/ftt-support.pdf xi http://www.cepr.net/documents/fst-facts-myths-12-10.pdf xii http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1154.pdf xiii http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704381604575005562735357750.html xiv http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704381604575005562735357750.html xv http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/news/economy/household_wealth/index.htm xvi NY Times Editorial, August 21 xvii http://www.corelogic.com/downloadable-docs/corelogic-q4-2010-negative-equityreport.pdf xviii This plan and the discussion of its contents is found in Homeownership Vesting Plan by Mark Zandi, www.economy.com, Regional Financial Review / December 2008.
Ending Corporate Welfare and Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Helping the Middle Class
Somewhere along the way, things have gotten seriously off track in this country. The middle class is getting hammered by falling incomes, unemployment, and a collapsed housing market. As a result, the average American family actually got poorer in the last ten years.xix At the same time, corporations are sitting on almost $2 trillion in cash reserves, the oil and gas industry alone has made $1 trillion in profits in the last decadexx, and Wall Street banks made a $29 billion profit in just the first quarter of 2011.xxi Wealthy individuals are also doing just fine. The median bonus for S&P 500 company CEOs last year was $2.2 million,xxii the top 10 percent of Americans now get about half the income in this countryxxiii, and due to the Bush tax breaks and years of loopholes creeping into the system, the wealthiest Americans now pay an average of only 17 percent in taxes, down from 26 percent twenty years ago. xxiv And, of course, our federal government has a $1.5 trillion deficit this year and Republicans in Congress want to balance it entirely by eliminating any vestige of progressive government. The solution should be simple: we need to end corporate welfare by eliminating all special interest tax breaks, and especially get rid of the hedge fund loophole that allows extremely wealthy Wall Street money managers to pay a lower tax rate on their pay than the middle class. We also need to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and fix the Alternative Minimum Tax that makes many middle class families pay a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans. We need to make taxes fairer and make the middle class the priority again. Corporate Welfare Many corporations have not only avoided paying any federal income taxes in recent years, but have actually received huge refunds.xxv In fact, in 2005, 25 percent of large corporations paid no income taxes while making $1.1 trillion in revenue.xxvi Over the last three years, sixty-seven of the largest companies in America paid an average of zero dollars in taxes and thirty of them got significant refunds.xxvii Overall, a group of the 280 biggest, most profitable corporations in America got $224 billion in tax subsidies.xxviii Closing down all of the loopholes that these corporations and their well-paid lobbyists have inserted into the tax code over the years would save hundreds of billions of dollars. We could get back $100 billion every year by putting an end to big companies and the super-rich sheltering their profits in offshore tax havens including $2 billion of tax burden that is shifted onto Connecticut taxpayers that these companies would otherwise owe.xxixxxx Much has been made of the tax breaks that the oil and gas industry gets, and we should choose right now who is more deserving of the $35 billion they will get over the next decade: this industry or middle class taxpayers.xxxi Big corporations, especially giant agribusinesses, get huge windfalls from the ethanol tax break, which costs taxpayers $5 billion a year.xxxii 11 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
Corporations write off entertaining clients in luxury skyboxes and other entertainment, costing $5 billion per year.xxxiii And of course, it is ludicrous to continue the loopholes in the tax code that reward companies that ship jobs overseas while disadvantaging companies that keep Americans employed here at home.xxxiv
Our tax code is riddled with a host of other tricks and benefits for corporations. Most are for mature and profitable industries that do not need the help, and none of them it help the middle class. As just a small sample, we can eliminate special tax breaks for coal, timber and agribusiness, along with smaller but equally ridiculous giveaways for owning racehorses, buying corporate jets, renovating NASCAR racetracks, and operating luxury cruise ships.xxxv Carried Interest: the Hedge Fund Loophole Executives of investment funds including big hedge funds, private equity firms and venture capitalists take a portion of a funds investment gains as compensation, which is known as carried interest. Right now, carried interest is taxed federally at 15 percent for capital gains a rock bottom rate set by the Bush tax cuts unlike regular income for the kind of work that most people do, which can be taxed as high as 35 percent.xxxvi This makes no sense to economists who have studied the matter, like University of Colorado professor Victor Fleischer,xxxvii and it also flies in the face of fundamental fairness to middle class taxpayers like police officers or teachers who pay more in taxes than these Wall Street titans. Taxing carried interest as ordinary income could generate more than $10 billion in tax revenue per year.xxxviii Ending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy This is long overdue, plain and simple. Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would save $830 billion over the next ten years. It would impact just the richest two percent of Americans, who already hold a disproportionate and growing percentage of the nations wealth.xxxix It is fair. And it is time. Helping the Middle Class Since the middle class has been so badly hammered by the recession, it is important to provide as much help as we can to keep Americans on their feet. We should protect current tax rates for the middle class. We should also extend the payroll tax holiday enacted last year for an additional year to help keep more income in peoples pockets and to boost consumer spending and help our economy. And we should defend the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health care from Republican attacks, because it is a major reason why most Americans have health insurance coverage through either their own employer or that of a family member.xl At the same time though, Congress has ignored the ticking time bomb of taxes on the middle the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and we have to fix the problem now. The AMT is a parallel tax system that was originally designed in the late 1960s to prevent the ultra-rich from avoiding their tax responsibilities. But because the income levels that trigger the AMT were never indexed for inflation, it has threatened to ensnare millions of middle-class Americans with 12 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
much higher tax rates. Every year, the congress has patched the AMT by temporarily increasing the exemption level that shields taxpayers from the tax. Without such a patch, 31 million Americans again, most of them middle-class would have paid an average of $4200 in higher taxes in 2012.xli Fixing it permanently is estimated to cost $1.1 trillion over the next decade, and the one-year cost in 2012 is $85 billion.xlii Summary and Conclusion Through tricks and loopholes, many corporations pay no federal income taxes. In 2005, 25 percent of large corporations paid no income taxes while making $1.1 trillion in revenue. Closing all of these loopholes would save hundreds of billions of dollars every year: $100 billion annually in offshore tax havens, $35 billion over 10 years for oil and gas, $5 billion a year for agribusiness ethanol giveaways, $5 billion a year for corporate skyboxes and restaurant write-offs, and breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, just to name a few. Big executives at hedge funds are required to pay just 15 percent rather than the income tax rates the rest of us pay stopping it would save $10 billion a year. Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would save $830 billion over the next 10 years. We should preserve tax cuts for the middle class. Fixing the AMT will shield 31 middle class million taxpayers and even more in future years from $4200 per year in higher taxes. It will cost $1.1 trillion over the next decade. All told, even with the cost of fixing the AMT included, these reforms would conservatively save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years. Taken together, these reforms would put our priorities back where they should be: helping the middle class to get fair treatment on their taxes, and ending the giveaways and benefits for the wealthiest corporations and individuals. These changes will save tens to hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
xix
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-householdincome/50383882/1 xx http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/big_oil_cash.html xxi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/bank-profit-corporate-bonus_n_866903.html xxii http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/bank-profit-corporate-bonus_n_866903.html xxiii http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/02/11/173127/narrow-tax-burden/ xxiv http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/04/tax-rates-down-dramatically-superwealthy/36755/ xxv http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/end-tax-breaks-for-profit_b_841173.html xxvi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/end-tax-breaks-forprofit_b_841173.html xxvii http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf xxviii http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf
xxix
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/REPORTTaxHavenBanksJuly1708FINALwPatEliseChgs92 6080.pdf xxx http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/taxes.html xxxi http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/oil_subsidies.html xxxii http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html xxxiii http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-05-30-10-terrible-taxbreaks_n.htm xxxiv http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/end-tax-breaks-forprofit_b_841173.html xxxv http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/budget_for_growth.pdf, http://www.blueoregon.com/2011/07/merkley-calls-end-bluegrass-boondoggle/, http://www.dailyyonder.com/congress-extends-special-nascar-tax-break/2010/01/01/2521 xxxvi http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/business/29carried.html?pagewanted=print xxxvii http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/business/29carried.html?pagewanted=print xxxviii http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-13/news/30291602_1_ordinary-income-taxunfairness-tax-rate xxxix http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220 xl http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/health-insurance/exclusion.cfm xli http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/upload/Elements/II4KEYELEMENTS_AlternativeMinimumTax. final.pdf xlii http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html
Real Reform in Washington the Kind They Wont Like

Americans understand that Washington isnt working. Approval of Congress has cratered to an all-time-low of 12 percent.xliii Unlike the past, when the American people often disliked the institution of Congress but liked their own representative, for the first time a majority of Americans now feel that their own member of Congress should not be re-elected.xliv And why? Because almost 90 percent of Americans today think that lobbyists, PACs, and the big corporations they represent have too much influence and are running things behind the scenes.xlv And theyre right. The startling numbers on lobbying, the influence of corporations in elections, and the misuse of taxpayer funds by Members of Congress has left Americans justifiably angry, mistrustful, and feeling cut out from their government. There is absolutely no chance of ending this corporate lobbyist control of government and the corruption by incumbent elected officials without deep reforms, the kind that entrenched powers in Washington will hate, but that can actually win back some trust from the American people. There should be a permanent ban on earmarks; no more contributions, bundling, or gifts from lobbyists; public disclosure of all meetings with lobbyists; a five year ban on Members of Congress and senior staff from becoming lobbyists; a constitutional amendment to prevent campaign donations from corporations; independent commissions to draw Congressional districts; and a ban on campaign-style mail financed by taxpayers. Lobbying Reform In 2010, $3.51 billion was spent on lobbying and there were 12,951 registered federal lobbyists, almost 25 lobbyists per member of Congress. xlvi A majority of them are former federal government staffers or elected members in fact, there are 370 former Members of Congress who are active registered federal lobbyists today.xlvii The revolving door swings the other way as well, with 130 staffers who were former federal lobbyists working in Congress right now at the most senior levels.xlviii Campaign contributions from lobbyists and their immediate family members to the top 100 recipients among Members of Congress topped $36 million in the last election cycle alone.xlix Many of these lobbyists over the years have sought earmarks, which reached a total of 9,129 projects at a cost of $16.5 billion in 2010 before a temporary moratorium a figure that actually represented a reduction from the glut of such projects a few years previous.l And while explicit bribery is still against the law, it has not only been legal but common for lawmakers to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists with one hand and dole out earmarks with the other, an arrangement with which the American people have already expressed their profound disgust. Efforts at earmark reform in recent years have been marked by half-measures, including disclosure, reducing the amount spent on earmarks, and temporary suspension. But many Members of Congress have brazenly resisted even these rudimentary steps, and an effort in the last Congress to ban Members of Congress from taking contributions from anyone for whom they had sought an earmark went nowhere, showing where Congress really stood on this issue.li The only way to fix the problem for good is to ban earmarks permanently, and remove this source of corruption. 15 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
It is important to note that efforts to eliminate earmarks have raised concerns in Connecticut about submarine manufacturing and other defense industries, which have benefited at times from earmarked funding. However, the majority of funding for defense industry work is contained in the defense authorization bill and does not rely on earmarks, and this year during an earmark moratorium Connecticuts defense suppliers did extremely well.lii In fact, Senator Blumenthal called the measure a historic blueprint for the future of our national defense and overwhelming vote of confidence in the weapons systems made here in Connecticut.liii The bill contained $3.2 billion for two submarines in 2012, with another $1.5 billion for advance procurement of additional submarines in 2013 and 2014, plus $1.07 billion to develop a replacement for the Ohio-class submarine designed to carry nuclear missiles, not to mention 114 new Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters and investment in a new helicopter design.liv In short, removing earmarks should have no significant negative impact on Connecticuts highly competitive defense industries.
Efforts to slow the revolving door between lobbying and government and to remove the unsavory tools that lobbyists can use to influence public officials have similarly been marked by half-measures. Bans on meals from lobbyists led to bizarre contortions of the rules, like the idea that hors doeuvres and finger foods were ok, but a sit down burger was not. One and two year post-employment lobbying bans for Representatives and Senators respectively led to former members going to corporate groups and lobbying firms and staying on retainer while serving out their ban like sitting in a cushy corporate penalty box for a year a relatively low price that the firm is all too happy to pay to get a member of congress lobbying for them in short order. Requirements to disclose bundling have done nothing to slow the flow of money from lobbyists and their clients to candidates. Even the most notorious convicted lobbyist in history Jack Abramoff believes the restrictions have loopholes that he could drive a truck through.lv This is why we must permanently end all contributions, bundling and gifts from lobbyists by force of law, as I have worked to do in Connecticut. Members of Congress should be required to publicly disclose all meetings they have held with lobbyists. And the current cooling off periods should be extended into five-year bans on Members of Congress and senior staff from becoming lobbyists, which is the only way to remove the financial incentive for corporations to warehouse future lobbyists until their bans have run out. And the ban should extend both ways, because the door swings both ways: lobbyists should be banned for 5 years from becoming senior congressional staff, so that they are not taking the agendas of their paying corporate clients inside the halls of Congress. Again, restrictions that I have supported in Connecticut provide a good model for some of these same reforms that must happen in Washington. In addition, we should enact laws to ban Members of Congress from trading on insider information that regular people do not have access to a practice that has recently been revealed to be common and tolerated within the walls of Congress. Congress should follow our example in Connecticut. As a state representative, I won passage of an ethics reform law considered to be one of the toughest in the country that banned gifts from lobbyists to legislators and became a model for other state legislatures. 16 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
Overturn Citizens United There has been an explosion of corporate money flooding into our elections. The disastrous 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed corporations or unions to fund unlimited outside expenditures in political campaigns. Immediately, the ruling led to well over $100 million in corporate spending to influence elections in 2010, though because these funds are undisclosed it is hard to know for sure how much more it might have been.lvi In fact, the percentage of money spent by groups that do not disclose their donors has skyrocketed from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 midterm elections. Even worse 72 percent of political advertising spending by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006.lvii Worse still, a federal judge recently ruled that all restrictions on corporate giving should be abolished and that companies should be allowed to give directly to candidates, a change that further blows the doors off the boundaries for corporate influence on elections. As is clear from the role of lobbyists described above, the problem in America is that corporations already have too large a voice in our government. Indeed, Political Action Committees (PACs) most of them funded by major corporations already act as yet another major arm of corporate influence and gave almost $425 million to federal candidates in the last election cycle.lviii The only sane recourse is to enact a constitutional amendment to undo the damage caused by Citizens United. Such an amendment can make clear that since the sovereign right of the people to govern and hold free elections is essential to a free democracy, the Constitution will not be construed to limit the authority of Congress or the states to regulate, with regard to its impact on any campaign or election, the spending and activities of any corporation. I was able to pass a groundbreaking campaign finance reform law in Connecticut that overhauls Connecticuts electoral process, places spending limits on all state-level races, brings equity to the process through a new system of public financing, and allows for greater participation in the electoral process. The country needs this kind of serious campaign reform. Independent Commissions to Draw Congressional Districts As the nationally recognized legal scholar Justin Leavitt wrote last year about redistricting: the process is marked by secrecy, self-dealing and backroom logrolling among elected officials. The public is largely shut out of the process. As outlined in Leavitts comprehensive report, the kaleidoscope of different state systems for redistricting have created myriad opportunities for politicians to choose who their voters will be (California), eliminate strong incumbents of the other party (Virginia), eliminate challengers for incumbents that one party wants to protect (Illinois), pack voters of one party into one district to limit their opportunity to elect representatives (Texas), dilute minority voices so that they cannot form a meaningful voting bloc (Texas, again), and to turn the parties against each other in a game of who can hurt the other party more (Illinois, again, though pretty much everywhere with a partisan, non-independent process).lix These kinds of actions have been repeated again and again across the country and go to the heart of why the American people do not trust either party, their elected representatives, or their 17 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
own elected government. This is a tragedy for the worlds greatest Democracy. Worse still, the overall effect of incumbent politicians controlling district lines is that most Members of Congress can ensure that they are in safe seats that will not be contested, which means that they are no longer accountable to the voters who elect them.lx This leads to politicians acting with impunity, cozying up to moneyed special interests and doing their bidding, rather than acting in the peoples best interest. Only six states use independent commission to re-draw district lines, but the American Bar Association and many legal scholars have advocated this approach nationwide as the only effective way to end the partisan shenanigans. Americans should have the same vote no matter where they live. Several proposals have been put forward in Congress to require states adopt independent commissions to handle redistricting, and the time is long overdue for this vital change for our democracy. Ending Taxpayer-Financed Campaign-Style Mail Incumbent Members of Congress have built advantages into the system to ensure their reelection. They run in districts that are often designed for their advantage. They get to raise money from highly paid lobbyists for whom they can get earmarks and do other legislative favors, and they get to deliver for corporations who can pour mountains of cash into supporting their campaigns. On top of it all, Members of Congress have increasingly been using the tax dollars that we give them to run their offices to support their political campaigns through a practice called franked mail. The congressional franking privilege dates back to 1775 and allows Members of Congress to transmit mail under their signature without postage, and Congress then reimburses the U.S. Postal Service using tax dollars.lxi For many years, and still for much congressional mail to this day, this privilege was used for beneficial public purposes as it was intended, such as responding to constituents questions and conducting official business. But in recent years, Members of Congress have increasingly used this loophole to send slick, glossy fliers touting their achievements that are indistinguishable from campaign mail. Individual House offices will often spend well over $100,000 in this selfpromotion to get re-elected, and all at taxpayer expense. Spending by some has come close to half a million dollars. And offices have begun to purchase highly developed commercial lists to better target their mail to voters, as they would in any campaign.lxii This simply has to stop and the fix is simple. A basic rule change in Congress would end the ability to send this kind of campaign-style mail.
Summary and Conclusion In 2010, $3.51 billion was spent on lobbying and there were 12,951 registered federal lobbyists, almost 25 lobbyists per member of Congress, 370 of whom are former Members of Congress.
There were 9,129 earmarks in 2010 costing taxpayers $16.5 billion. Members of Congress commonly accept campaign contributions from the same people who are asking for earmarks. Reform efforts have been ignored, or have become a joke. Many Members of Congress resisted earmark disclosure. Bans on taking meals from lobbyists have been circumvented by standing up and eating, or having the lobbyist throw a fundraiser. Revolving door rules have done nothing to stop the flow back and forth between the Capitol and K Street. There was at least $100 million in direct corporate spending to influence elections in 2010, probably a lot more, and $425 million in PAC contributions. The process of creating congressional districts has turned into a political game between the parties that protects their incumbents and has nothing to do with the public interest. Members of Congress routinely spend upwards of $100,000 and up to half a million dollars on taxpayer-financed, glossy political mail that is virtually indistinguishable from campaign materials, giving them another overwhelming advantage in elections.
On all of these issues, Washington has shown itself incapable of real reform. The steps it has taken have been weak half-measures. Real reform is the kind of reform that makes lobbyists, corporations, and incumbent Members of Congress squirm, and gives real people faith again and that is what we need now. That is why we need a permanent ban on earmarks; no more contributions, bundling, or gifts from lobbyists; public disclosure of all meetings with lobbyists; a five year ban on Members of Congress and staff from becoming lobbyists, a constitutional amendment to prevent campaign donations from corporations; independent commissions to draw Congressional districts; and a ban on campaign-style mail financed by taxpayers
xliii
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/PollApprovalRatingforCongressMatchesRecordLow/2 011/09/17/id/411342 xliv http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/09/cnn-poll-time-to-clean-house-in-congress/ xlv http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/790 /ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx xlvi http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php xlvii http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z xlviii http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/reverse.php xlix http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php l http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/ li http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bd38Sj:@@@D&summ2=m&|/hom e/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=111| lii http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/ct_manufacturers_make_out_in_sena te_defense_spending_bill/ liii http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/ct_manufacturers_make_out_in_sen ate_defense_spending_bill/ liv http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/ct_manufacturers_make_out_in_sen ate_defense_spending_bill/ lv http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67460.html 19 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
lvi
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/05/citizens-united-decision-profoundly-affectspolitical-landscape.html lvii http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/05/citizens-united-decision-profoundly-affectspolitical-landscape.html lviii http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/list.php lix http://brennan.3cdn.net/7182a7e7624ed5265d_6im622teh.pdf lx The most recent Cook political report lists only 55 US House of Representatives seats in competitive categories, about 1 in 8 or 13% fo the chamber. http://cookpolitical.com/charts/house/competitive_2011-11-17_12-27-56.php. lxi http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22771.pdf lxii http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/04/08/more-taxpayer-money-spent-on-mailduring-election-years
Supporting Clean American Energy

The Challenge Our reliance on foreign oil and other fossil fuels is hurting our security, our economy, and our health. The United States imports 9.4 million barrels of oil every single day, meaning we spend well over a billion dollars on foreign oil every single day. lxiiilxiv Oil imports alone created a $386 billion U.S. trade deficit in 2008, compared to a $266 billion deficit with China and a $690 billion overall deficit that year. What is worse perhaps is that in 2008, the U.S. imported about 4 million barrels of oil a day about 40 percent of our total imports from countries labeled dangerous or unstable by the State Department. As former CIA director Jim Woolsey and numerous other military and security leaders have said, we are literally funding enemies who are trying to kill our soldiers abroad and our civilians at home.lxv At the same time, fossil fuel use produces high levels of pollution that cause significant health and environmental problems in our country, and of course is causing climate change. Coal is the source of about half of our electricity, and is single biggest source of air pollution, in addition to causing significant problems for water and land resources.lxvi And the cost of coal will only increase over time as the quality of the coal decreases in fact, it now has 20 percent less energy per kilogram than it did in 1949.lxvii All of this will raise costs on middle class Americans more and more in the next 20 years. By becoming energy independent, we could stop taking the hard-earned money of American citizens, stop funneling it to our enemies, and stop destroying our own natural resources. We could stop being at the mercy of foreign despots. We could improve our health and avoid the devastating costs of environmental damage. We could eliminate most of our trade deficit. And, we could create an explosion of jobs and growth in America. A recent analysis by Google found that through developing innovations in clean, American energy, we could:lxviii Grow US GDP by over $155 billion per year Create over 1.1 million new net jobs per year Reduce household energy costs by over $942 per year Reduce US oil consumption by over 1.1 billion barrels per year Reduce US total carbon emissions by 13 percent. Looking at the difference between what our current situation is costing us and the benefits we could reap by developing clean American energy, it becomes obvious that there is perhaps no more vital step that we could take to help the middle class well into the future than to invest in our own clean energy sector. Unfortunately, other countries are currently getting the jump on us. A report last year by the Pew Charitable trusts found that:lxix 21 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
Those nationssuch as China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany and Spainwith strong, national policies aimed at reducing global warming pollution and incentivizing the use of renewable energy are establishing stronger competitive positions in the clean energy economyChina, for example, has set ambitious targets for wind, biomass and solar energy and, for the first time, took the top spot within the G-20 and globally for overall clean energy finance and investment in 2009. The United States slipped to second place. Relative to the size of its economy, the United States clean energy finance and investments lag behind many of its G-20 partners. For example, in relative terms, Spain invested five times more than the United States last year, and China, Brazil and the United Kingdom invested three times morepolicy, investment and business experts alike have noted that the clean energy economy is emerging as one of the great global economic and environmental opportunities of the 21st century[the U.S. is at] risk of falling further behind its G-20 competitors in the coming years unless it adopts a strong national policy framework to spur more robust clean energy investment. The Solution So how do we reclaim that top spot, free ourselves from foreign oil, transition away from dirtier mainstays like coal, and create millions of jobs here? There are many pieces to the puzzle. For years, policymakers have talked about pricing carbon emissions and advancing renewable portfolio standards, but both ideas are stalled in Washington. Advanced biofuels will have to be part of the solution. Pushing our fuel economy standards for vehicles more aggressively, on top of the progress that the Obama administration has made, will be important, as will overall energy efficiency. And the US government should support domestic alternative fuel sources by making sure that its vehicles and postal service vehicles use no foreign oil. But one approach that has not received as much attention, but is beginning to be adopted at the state and local level, happens to be the most successful policy in the world for creating rapid growth in clean energy technology. It is known by a variety of names advanced renewable contracts, feed-in rates, feed-in tariffs, CLEAN contracts, standard contracts for renewables we would simply call it Clean Energy Contracts.lxx By whatever name, this policy has been responsible for a huge growth of wind and solar energy capacity in over 40 countries and in 80 jurisdictions around the world, including most of Europe.lxxi It is responsible for nearly all of the growth in European solar since 1997,lxxii for 64 percent of the world's wind power, and almost 90 percent of the world's solar power.lxxiii In fact, a similar policy existed in the US in the early 1980s, and now exists in California, Vermont, Hawaii, and other US locales. The German program has been so successful that Germany now has twice the solar capacity of the U.S., with only around a quarter of our population and half the sunlight of the Southwest United States.lxxiv When China set up such a policy for wind projects in 2009, it quickly overtook the United States to become the world's number one wind power market.lxxv Clean Energy Contracts are a simple concept: it simply means mandating that utilities must purchase renewable energy under long-term contracts at set purchase prices (based on the cost of 22 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
generation, so they can be different for different technologies), and with guaranteed grid access for producers. Eligible renewable electricity generators (which can include homeowners, business owners, or larger scale private investors) are paid a set price for the renewable electricity they produce. The rates are calculated by technical experts to allow producers to cover their costs plus a small profit, and these rates usually decrease over time to encourage innovation and efficiency. This policy is so effective because the contracts make the investment attractive and thereby create a reliable market where investors can expect a clear return over an extended period of time. From there, the market takes over, and entrepreneurs and investors flood in. No other policy mechanism creates this kind of incentive for investment, which is why no other policy has had this kind of massive success around the world in unleashing capital and generating explosive growth in clean energy technology. Given this track record of success, why has not this policy been adopted more widely here in America yet? The major reason is that these programs are designed to pay producers the higher prices for the electricity generated by clean sources, which means that programs abroad have often been designed so that consumers pay these higher costs through their electric bills. Many lawmakers have been reluctant to put in place a policy that might raise rates even a little, especially at a time when so many Americans are struggling to pay their bills (note: it is actually unclear if consumers actually pay higher rates over time, as explained in this footnote,lxxvi but policymakers have been hesitant anyway). I agree that we should not raise electric bills on the middle class and small businesses. At the same time, we desperately need this kind of a policy to turn the tables on clean energy, overtake the rest of the world, and create millions of jobs here in America. That is why we should design a national clean energy contract policy that does not put any of the burden on ratepayers. In fact, designing a specific program is a highly technical area that many experts have gone to great lengths develop (our own National Renewable Energy Laboratory has done extensive work on this) and which can be left to experts at the most detailed level. However, we can easily outline the principals for an effective clean energy contract program for America: Instead of asking ratepayers to pay for any higher initial costs of electricity from clean American sources, the contracts should be financed with a portion of the revenue from the transaction tax on Wall Street. Using such a dedicated fund rather than relying on electric rates been used successfully in several instances around the world,lxxvii and it would help to ensure that investors will know that there is a reliable source of support for clean energy development. To limit the total cost of the program, we should cap the amount of new contracts available to be filled to $50 billion per year for five years ($30 billion in the first year, the amount projected to be left over after paying for the mortgage program). Vermonts program is capped at 50 MW of power generated it is also possible to cap a national program based on total funds available.lxxviiilxxix Under this approach, producers would agree to contracts directly with utilities, and the utilities would be 23 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
compensated for the extra costs of the electricity so that there would be no added cost to ratepayers. This would ensure that we are leveraging funds to create a massive infusion of capital into clean American energy. As has been recommended by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory based on successful programs around the world, the price paid for electricity in the Clean Energy Contracts should allow producers to recover their costs and make a reasonable profit, but should diminish each year until it equals the prevailing market rate.lxxx This will drive innovation, technological advances, and greater production efficiency. It will also mean that the amount required to be financed by the transaction tax on Wall Street will decrease every year to zero. Even if we assume a cap of $50 billion per year for the first 5 years, $40 billion for the next five, $30 billion for the next five, and $20 billion for the last five, over the first ten years the cost would be $450 billion about half of what we would pay to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and over 20 years the total cost would be $700 billion. And we would still be saving $500 billion overall over ten years from closing the offshore tax haven loophole. For the system to work best, producers must be guaranteed access to the grid. Deficiencies in the grid or ability to connect with it have slowed renewable energy deployment in otherwise successful programs in other countries.lxxxi Utilities should be required to perform whatever upgrades are necessary to allow all producers to supply their electricity to the grid at all times, and should not be allowed to pass the costs of these upgrades on to ratepayers. To help support this work and ensure that ratepayers do not face increased costs, we should create a national infrastructure bank (see previous proposal) with an explicit mandate to work with utilities to finance grid upgrades. The program should cover multiple sources of clean energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, and others. The program should guarantee U.S. manufacturing growth by requiring that clean energy products used to generate the energy be manufactured here in the U.S.
The result of a program designed this way would be to drive an explosion of private investment in clean American energy, which in turn would create millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of additional economic growth. This alone would not liberate us from foreign oil, which would require the development of electric vehicles and other products, but it would spur massive growth in American clean energy and bring all of the economic, environmental, and employment benefits that come with it. Summary and Conclusion The United States imports 9.4 million barrels of oil every single day, meaning we spend well over a billion dollars on foreign oil each day. This accounts for well over half of our trade deficit, and 40 percent comes from dangerous and unstable countries. Coal-fired electricity is the biggest source of air pollution in our country. Prices of fossil fuels are projected to rise over time, meaning Americans will be paying more and more for energy that supports our enemies, and for electricity that harms our health and causes massive environmental costs. 24 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

lxiii lxiv
By contrast, by developing innovations in clean, American energy, we could grow US GDP by over $155 billion per year, create over 1.1 million new net jobs per year, and reduce household energy costs by over $942 per year. The most successful policy around the world for developing domestic clean energy is what we call Clean Energy Contracts. They allow clean energy producers to sell their energy to the utility for a set price in a long-term contract, and therefore create a flood of private investment in clean energy. Unlike in some places, though, we should not allow middle class ratepayers to fund any increased costs. We should take a portion of the funds from the transaction tax on Wall Street and devote them to Clean Energy Contracts to spur investment in clean American energy. Ratepayers wont pay an extra dime. Utilities should be responsible for any upgrades to the grid necessary to make sure the renewable energy producers can connect and supply energy. They should not be allowed to pass those costs on to ratepayers. A national infrastructure bank should be created with a primary goal of supporting this upgrading process. We should allow $50 billion per year on this program for the first five years, and less in subsequent years. Over time, the contract prices should diminish until they equal the overall market rate, spurring innovation and technological growth in this sector. This will create millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars of economic growth.
http://www.eesi.org/fossil_fuels http://www.trumanproject.org/files/papers/Oil_Addiction__Fueling_Our_Enemies_FINAL.pdf lxv http://www.trumanproject.org/files/papers/Oil_Addiction__Fueling_Our_Enemies_FINAL.pdf lxvi http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html lxvii http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-america-needs-a-feed-in-tariff/174 lxviii http://cleaneconomynetwork.org/sites/default/files/Google.orgThe_Impact_of_Clean_Energy_Innovation_0.pdf lxix http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Global_warming/G20%20Report.pdf, Executive Summary lxx http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-america-needs-a-feed-in-tariff/174 lxxi http://www.wind-works.org/FeedLaws/SnapshotofFeedinTariffsaroundtheWorldin2011.html lxxii http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-america-needs-a-feed-in-tariff/174 lxxiii http://www.grist.org/renewable-energy/2011-11-26-simple-transparent-feed-in-tariffpolicy-responsible-for-most lxxiv http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-america-needs-a-feed-in-tariff/174 lxxv http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/09/14/14climatewire-china-uses-feed-in-tariff-tobuild-domestic-25559.html?pagewanted=all lxxvi If the costs of the program were passed on to consumers, there are many reasons why they are likely to be modest or make rates no higher than they would have been. One is that rates based on fossil fuel sources can fluctuate wildly, so renewable sources are not always 25 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
significantly more expensive. Another is that the because the cost is spread, it has amounted to less than $50 per household in Germany which has the highest concentration of renewable energy sources in the world, and even then the reduced cost from replacing fossil fuel sources means that the final cost to households is probably zero. Additionally, nearly three-quarters of our coal-fired capacity, contributing 46 percent of our electricity, is at least 30 years old; so not only are coal prices going up naturally over time, but all of that capacity must be replaced, so prices will rise to account for building that physical plant, and the difference between costs from renewable sources and costs including building new plant will be fairly even, or actually better from sources like solar. And finally, programs are often designed to reduce the amount paid in the contract for renewable sources, so the costs of the program decrease as well to overall market rates. See http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-americaneeds-a-feed-in-tariff/174. lxxvii http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/44849.pdf, pp.94-95. lxxviii http://www.pewclimate.org/node/6558 lxxix http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/44849.pdf, p.83. lxxx http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/44849.pdf, summary. lxxxi http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/09/14/14climatewire-china-uses-feed-in-tariff-tobuild-domestic-25559.html?pagewanted=all
National Defense: Smarter and Stronger

It is time to refine our global military strategy. Over the last quarter century, the need to protect our people and our allies, to deter aggression, and to safeguard our interests has remained constant. But we now face a vastly different spectrum of threats than ten or even ten years ago. Instead of a security landscape defined by a bipolar world power structure, diffuse global terror networks now represent a primary threat to US citizens and allies. We live in a time of political and economic instability, where internet-fueled popular movements can suddenly overturn longstanding powers and where deterring aggression from nuclear armed and outcast regimes commands tremendous amounts of our diplomatic and military focus. As our defense needs evolve, so to must our defense posture. We cannot win new wars by fighting old ones. We need to continue our aggressive fight against terrorism and ensure our continuing ability to project power, but we also face changing needs and real budget constraints. Our goal should be to align our military strength to the threats and realities we now face, and move past our obsolete Cold War defense posture. In short, our challenge is to make our defense smarter and stronger. One of the best ways to do that would be to immediately re-align our forces by bringing all of our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and closing many of the bases and returning troops from Europe and Japan. Bases and Force Deployment Our current worldwide deployment of forces, especially our presence in Europe, no longer makes sense. As the Congressional Budget Office reported: Administration officials have questioned whether U.S. forces that are stationed primarily in Germany and South Korea are positioned appropriately to respond to probable future conflicts. They argue that conflicts are much more likely to occur in Africa, Western Asia, or the Middle East than anywhere in Western Europe. Similarly, conflicts may occur in Asia at locations other than on the Korean Peninsula Although the two Army divisions stationed in Germany were well placed to defend NATO from Soviet attack, they cannot deploy quickly to conflicts outside Germany. For example, three months elapsed between the decision to move the 1st Armored Division from Germany to Iraq in March 2003 and its arrival in that theater.lxxxii The overall strain of our worldwide deployments is substantial. More than one-third of U.S. troops are currently based abroad or afloat in international waters, and hundreds of bases and access agreements exist throughout the world.lxxxiii There are more than 1,000 military bases overseas alone.lxxxiv As one report summarized: More than half a century after World War II and the Korean War, we still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Others are scattered around the globe in places like Aruba and Australia, Bulgaria and Bahrain, Colombia and Greece, Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, and of course, Guantnamo Bay, Cuba just to name a few.lxxxv 27 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
It is hard to know the exact cost of this sprawling global presence, because the Department of Defense's budgets do not show the breakdown of costs, for example, between maintaining bases at home and overseas.lxxxvi Nevertheless, one reliable estimate puts the total cost of maintaining troops, equipment, fleets, and bases overseas, including our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, at $250 billion annually.lxxxvii Each base and unit sent overseas is not just an investment in the troops themselves, but also creates mushrooming strains and costs on our military. Most bases come with all of the amenities of domestic facilities, such as commissaries, chapels, exercise facilities, and post offices. In Germany alone, our military runs 70 schools for more than 30,000 children who are dependents of our personnel,lxxxviii plus 36 "villages" for family housing, which have a replacement value of roughly $14 billion, plus five hotels, 15 smaller training areas, nine airfields, four depots, three golf courses, a Boy Scout camp, and a Girl Scout camp.lxxxix We also pay for moving expenses for all household goods, including cars, for all of the personnel at these forward-base units, which means in Germany that every year we are acting as overseas house movers for around 30,000 personnel and their families as they cycle through.xc This is why the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that it costs about $1 billion more per year to maintain about 56,000 Army forces in Germany alone than if those troops were stationed in the United States.xci Pentagon leaders have recognized that it is time to change our defense posture in Europe. In 2004, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld publicly planned to close 33 percent of our overseas bases and relocate 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilians back home.xcii National Security Adviser Jim Jones, who was then the commander of all U.S. forces in Europe, called for closing 20 percent of our bases in Europe. More recently, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has publicly contemplated changing the number of American troops based in Europe to better fit todays security needs.xciii Moreover, under current plans, the Army is already set to decrease from 570,000 to 520,000 troops, and the Marine Corps from 202,000 to 186,600, beginning in 2015. Many analysts feel that our best strategy would be to go further and return to the end strength we had in 2001 before the surge of forces driven by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and which would be better matched to the global needs we are likely to face in the near future.xciv So many of the troops that would return from overseas could be re-assigned to bases in the US over time without the need to construct new facilities. In addition, many analysts have pointed to increasing our naval strength as a vital way to project our power and protect our interests in the new security climate.xcv Especially as we address a resurgent Russia and an aggressive China that are both looking to assert their global interests, increasing the capacity of our Navy would be an effective means to project power and protect our interests and allies.xcvi This would be a far better way to maintain a flexible yet powerful overseas presence than to maintain the sheer volume of static troops and bases overseas that we now have. This applies to our military presence in Japan as well, where we have over 35,000 military personnel, but only about half are Navy or Air Force, and where we could reduce the overall number of bases and troops but still maintain a strong naval and air presence to protect interests in the region.xcvii 28 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
It should be noted that the 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea still provide an important deterrence against North Korean aggression, and we must maintain that strong posture. However, they are housed in obsolete, poorly-maintained facilities that are so bad, and in which conditions are so dangerous, that personnel are entitled to receive hardship duty pay of $150 per month. That in turn means that families do not accompany their enlisted member, which means constant turnover in one-year tours that places stress on the Army. The entire system could be far better rationalized with modernized and improved basing.xcviii Afghanistan The biggest ongoing drain on our military is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have spent $1.2 trillion so far one of the biggest sources of the massive debt we have accumulated as a nation in the past decade and were still spending around $10 billion per month through this past year. While the President has ordered the final withdrawal of forces from Iraq this year, the pace of withdrawal from Afghanistan is planned to be far slower, taking until the summer of 2012 to go from 100,000 to 68,000, and until 2014 to reach minimal forces.xcix We have achieved our principal military objectives in Afghanistan. The combination of targeted robotic drone aircraft and commando team attacks has significantly degraded al Qaedas capabilities and diminished its numbers in fact, it is estimated that there are now likely fewer than 500 al Qaeda militants left in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While it is important that we maintain our drone capabilities so that we can keep pressure on the remaining al Qaeda forces and prevent them from rebuilding their capacity, our large-scale military engagement should end immediately. We have averaged more than 50 US fatalities every month in Afghanistan in 2011.c Every day that we manage to move up the timeline for redeploying our forces from a war that has achieved its objectives means more American lives saved. Every month that we move up the timeline can save us billions of dollars. Summary and Conclusion There are more than 1,000 military bases overseas, including 268 in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. The total cost of maintaining all troops, equipment, fleets, and bases overseas is $250 billion annually. It costs about $1 billion more per year to maintain about 56,000 Army forces in Germany alone than if those troops were stationed in the United States. Officials from both parties have pointed out that our global troop presence is poorly positioned in a post-Cold War world and no longer helping to advance our national security interests. We can effectively and flexibly project power and protect our interests in much of the world through enhanced naval power. We have spent $1.2 trillion so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should work to speed the redeployment of troops out of both theaters so that they are brought home as soon as possible.
lxxxii
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415&type=0&sequence=3 http://www.fpif.org/reports/the_cost_of_the_global_us_military_presence lxxxiv http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases

lxxxiii
lxxxv
http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases http://www.fpif.org/reports/the_cost_of_the_global_us_military_presence lxxxvii http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases. This estimate does not include some of the subsidies that our allies pay to defray some of the cost. lxxxviii http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415&type=0&sequence=3 lxxxix http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415&type=0&sequence=3 xc http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415&type=0&sequence=3 xci http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415&type=0&sequence=3 xcii http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases xciii http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thoughtout-of-bounds.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all xciv NSN citation xcv http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/sunday-review/a-new-era-of-gunboatdiplomacy.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=gunboat&st=cse&scp=1 xcvi http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/sunday-review/a-new-era-of-gunboatdiplomacy.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=gunboat&st=cse&scp=1 xcvii http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0912.pdf xcviii http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415&type=0&sequence=3 xcix http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/inde x.html c http://icasualties.org/oef/ByMonth.aspx
lxxxvi
A Fair, Lasting, and Practical Solution on Immigration

Our country is missing a golden opportunity to improve our economy, increase our security, lower our deficit, and take some of the burden off of taxpayers. By failing to put in place a practical solution to reform our immigration system, we have missed an opportunity for economic growth and revenue at a time when both are in short supply. We cant afford to wait any longer. A real solution would include giving those undocumented immigrants who are already living here a path to legal status, as long as they have a job and pay their taxes. Those who have been established here longer in their communities should have a path to full citizenship. This does not mean full citizenship for everyone, or any kind of false political label like amnesty. It does mean that America can reap all of the benefits to our country and our taxpayers of getting people who have been living and working here fully integrated into the American economy, as part of a fair, lasting, and practical solution on immigration. We should also expand legal immigration by allowing better opportunities for students from foreign countries who go to college in the United States to stay here and work and contribute to our economy, and by expanding opportunities for highly skilled immigrants who can help grow our economy to come here and do so, rather than with our foreign competitors. The Challenge There are 38 million foreign-born residents in the United States: 16.4 million are naturalized citizens, and 10.8 million are unauthorized and undocumented and are therefore here illegally. ci Our current immigration system is clearly broken: it fails to enforce our laws, it actually gives people incentives to engage in unauthorized migration, and for businesses to hire illegal workers because there are so few channels to acquire legal resident status or to come and temporarily perform work that Americans will not do. This perpetuates a shadow economy that not only erodes our laws, but also depresses wages and therefore hurts American workers. While border security and tough law enforcement are important, they alone have not solved the problem and do not address root causes and do not deal with those already living and working here.. Perpetuating this status quo is foolish, because we are foregoing the benefits to our economy, our taxpayers, and our security of enacting reform. In addition, America is lagging way behind the rest of the world when it comes to producing scientists and engineers. The technological progress that these types of workers create accounts for about 85 percent of our economic growth. As one analyst pointed out: In the U.S., fewer than 16 percent of all bachelors degrees are awarded to scientists and engineers a significantly lower rate than say China, who awarded nearly half of its first university degrees in these fields (47 percent), while South Korea awarded 38 percent and Germany awarded 28 percent. The U.S. ranks 27th among the top 29 developed countries 31 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
in this category[and] half of all engineers in the United States will retire with the baby boom generation.cii In short, we are falling behind on training and retaining the scientists and engineers we need in this country to invigorate our future economic growth. The Benefits of Reform It is estimated that creating a path to citizenship for immigrants who have been already working here would generate a boost to our GDP of at least 0.84 percent which amounts to $1.5 trillion in our economy and also lifts wages for everyone across the board.ciii This stands in sharp contrast to attempting a mass deportation program, which even if it were possible would cost our economy $2.6 trillion in lost productivity, at least $200 billion to actually put in placeciv, and would lead to widespread job loss.cv Even the alternative of just putting in place a widespread temporary worker program fails to deliver the same economic benefit to America, delivering $700 billion less in GDP than real reform and leading to lower wages for Americans.cvi In fact, if we had managed to put in place real reform to our immigration system two years ago, which is the last time that Congress made even a show of seriously considering the issue, it is estimated that since then we could have seen 3.4% economic growth (instead of a loss of 2.7% in 2009 and a gain of only 2.9% in 2010cvii), 309,000 additional jobs, and about $5 billion in additional tax revenue for the federal government.cviii The failure of Congress to act is literally costing us jobs today and putting added burdens on Connecticut taxpayers. A real reform would also include a 21st century strategy on legal immigration that would help fuel future job growth and economic prosperity. With the looming retirement of the Baby Boomer generation and transitions across the demographic spectrum, it is clear that we are going to need more workers in the future at different and varied skill levels.cix The major source of this future workforce should be todays young Americans receiving high quality education and training. But we also know that we can generate more growth and prosperity by continuing to add new Americans through employment-based immigration. In fact, in 2000, immigrant business owners generated 12 percent of all business income, and engineering and technology companies with at least one key immigrant founder generated $52 billion between 1995 and 2005 and created roughly 450,000 jobs.cx So we should adjust the levels of employment-based immigration as part of our long-term strategy to make sure that we are capturing all of this economic growth potential here in America, rather than abroad. This is also why providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, have since lived their whole lives here, and who complete either a twoor four-year college degree or two years of active military service is so important it could add a critical 252,000 new scientists, engineers, and technical workers to Americas economy.cxi The Solution A solution that is fair to everyone, including US taxpayers and workers, and practical to implement would require those living in the United States without documentation to register, pay their taxes, learn English, and complete background checks. The more recent arrivals should be 32 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.
able to get on a path to attain legal documented status. Those who had been here longer and are well established in their communities should be able to get on a path to citizenship. We should also create a path to citizenship for those who came here as young children and who complete a college degree or military service. This will not only deliver the economic and tax benefits to the US and to our taxpayers outlined above, but also restore the rule of law and improve our security by letting us know exactly who is here and helping enforcement agencies focus on serious criminals and security threats.cxii We should also expand the H2-A program for temporary agricultural workers. Under this program, the employer must demonstrate that there are not sufficient US workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work, usually meaning that the job must have been widely posted and clearly available to Americans first, and that the employment of these workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. This program therefore does not harm employment for US citizens, but provides vital support for our agricultural sector. This path to legal status or citizenship for those who are here including those who grew up here or went to college here and expanded legal permanent residency for foreigners whose skills we want to fuel our economy would represent a fair, lasting, and practical solution to the issue of illegal immigration and generate tremendous benefits for our economy and for American workers and taxpayers. Summary and Conclusion There are 10.8 million undocumented people living here currently. Our current system is fundamentally broken: it fails to enforce our laws and it actually incentivizes people to engage in unauthorized migration because we lack an efficient immigration and temporary work system to help our economy. Real immigration reform with a path to legal status or citizenship for undocumented workers would increase GDP at least 0.84 percent, which amounts to $1.5 trillion in our economy, and also lift wages for everyone across the board. Such reform put in place in 2009 could have led to 3.4 percent US economic growth, 309,000 additional jobs, and about $5 billion in additional tax revenue. Creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, have since lived their whole lives here, and who complete either a twoor four-year college degree or two years of active military service could add a critical 252,000 new scientists, engineers, and technical workers to Americas economy. We should therefore create a path to citizenship for young people in these categories, and a path to legal status for all undocumented workers currently here who register, pay their taxes, learn English, and complete background checks. Those who have been here longer and have given the greatest benefit to American communities and taxpayers should have a path to citizenship. In addition, while the major source of our future workforce should be todays young Americans receiving high quality education and training, we should expand legal permanent residency as part of a 21st century strategy on employment-based immigration 33 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

ci
that tries to capture the economic growth potential of highly skilled foreigners who went to college here or who want to create jobs and businesses here. We should also expand H2-A visas for temporary workers for jobs that Americans do not want but which are vital for our agricultural sector.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41704_20110321.pdf http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/science_dream_act.html ciii http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/raising_the_floor.html civ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/11/solutions-fitz-reforming-ourimmigration-policies/ cv http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/raising_the_floor.html cvi http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/raising_the_floor.html cvii http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG cviii http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/immigration_economy.html cix http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/11/solutions-fitz-reforming-ourimmigration-policies/ cx http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/immigration_economy.html cxi http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/science_dream_act.html cxii http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/11/solutions-fitz-reforming-ourimmigration-policies/
cii

Bysiewicz Accountable Plan

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bysiewicz Accountable Plan

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Watch the videos, learn more, and get engaged at http://www.susansplan.

Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

1 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

Components of the Accountability Plan

2 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

3 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

Supporting Clean American Energy

National Defense: Smarter and Stronger

A Fair, Lasting, and Practical Solution on Immigration

4 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

Holding Wall Street Accountable While Helping Middle Class Homeowners

6 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

10 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

13 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

14 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

Real Reform in Washington the Kind They Wont Like

18 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

20 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

Supporting Clean American Energy

26 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

National Defense: Smarter and Stronger

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415&type=0&sequence=3 http://www.fpif.org/reports/the_cost_of_the_global_us_military_presence lxxxiv http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases

29 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

30 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

A Fair, Lasting, and Practical Solution on Immigration

34 Paid for by Susan Bysiewicz for Connecticut, Inc.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen