Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday December 11 2016, @03:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the about-turn? dept.

On Friday morning, Bloomberg reported that it had seen a copy of a questionnaire sent by the Trump transition team to the Department of Energy (DOE). The questionnaire includes 75 questions directed at the DOE and the Energy Information Agency (EIA), as well as any labs underneath the DOE's purview. The New York Times then obtained and published a copy of the document.

Although the questions are broad in nature, they seem to set the department up for budget and staffing cuts. They also appear to favor nuclear power and fossil fuel.

Questions that address cuts to the DOE's mission include: "Which Assistant Secretary positions are rooted in statute and which exist at the discretion and delegation of the Secretary?", as well as "If the DOE's topline budget in accounts other than the 050 account were required to be reduced 10% over the next four fiscal years (from the FY17 request and starting in FY18), does the Department have any recommendations as to where those reductions should be made?" A 050 account indicates national defense spending.

With respect to renewables and research, the questionnaire asks the DOE to provide a complete list of the projects shouldered by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds early-stage energy technology that would otherwise not be funded on the private market. ARPA-E opened its doors in 2009 under President Obama and works on battery research, biofuel production, and wind turbine projects.

Efforts to modernize the US' aging and inefficient grids also seemed to get a critical eye. "What is the goal of the grid modernization effort?" the questionnaire asks. "Is there some terminal point to this effort? Is its genesis statutory or something else?"

[Continues...]

[...] While divining the motivations behind the questions is difficult, some of them have potentially nefarious undertones. One of the questions asks for a list of all employees or contractors who attended meetings about the social cost of carbon, as well as a list of materials distributed at those meetings. Another asks "Can you provide a list of Department employees who attended any of the Conference of the Parties (under the UNFCCC) in the last five years?" According to the Washington Post , one unnamed Energy Department official expressed concern that "the Trump transition team was trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama." Scientists have asked the administration to "refrain from singling out individual researchers whose work might conflict with the new administration's policy goals."

[...] The questionnaire also has pointed questions for the EIA, an independent agency under the DOE umbrella that provides energy market analysis. The questionnaire seemingly accuses the EIA of overlooking the costs of renewable energy when comparing it to fossil fuels. "Renewable and solar technologies are expected to need additional transmission costs above what fossil technologies need," the questionnaire states. "How has EIA represented this in the AEO [Annual Energy Outlook] forecasts? What is the magnitude of those transmission costs?"

Thomas Pyle, the head of the pro-fossil fuel American Energy Alliance, is leading Trump's Department of Energy Transition team, and he likely had a hand in assembling these questions. According to the Washington Post, Pyle recently wrote a fundraising pitch decrying "the Obama administration's divisive energy and environmental policies" and promising that "the Trump administration will adopt pro-energy and pro-market policies."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:40AM

    by Francis (5544) on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:40AM (#439891)

    The job of congress here is to tax the wealthy people who hoarded all the wealth through loopholes in the first place. That $20tn debt is composed almost entirely of debts that came from tax cuts to the rich and bailouts of the rich. Very little of that debt went to making America great and as such, we should get a refund.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:24AM (#439912)

    Do you have a citation for all that class envy, or should we just take your word for it?

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:54AM (#439920)

    Here is a graph of government spending as a percentage of GDP [usgovernmentspending.com] over time. While tax cuts may have contributed to the debt, ever-increasing spending has contributed, too.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:59AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:59AM (#439933) Journal
    Ah yes, let's go after those evil, purely imaginary wealth hoarders. I too will tilt at those giants trying to hide as wind mills.

    That $20tn debt is composed almost entirely of debts that came from tax cuts to the rich and bailouts of the rich.

    Like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and defense spending. All tax cuts to the rich and bailouts of the rich.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:02PM (#440059)

      Yay false flags!

      Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain, just believe the giant heads that tell you its all the fault of the poor!!

      Hahaha heeehhhhhhh oogh. You are the antithesis of the person you replied to. Our debt come from both things and we should reprioritize what we spent on. So far it's clear that the weapons industry needs to be reigned in, and our social safety nets restructured to be more efficient and sane.

      Austerity measures are just a clever way to say "let's solve our problems by fucking over the poor" instead of dealing with the real problems. Why do we do this batshit crazy stuff? Because corruption is off the scales and the people with lots of money and power are not going to give it up. But hey khallow at least they have brave soldiers like you willing to fight the good fight on their behalf... Lawl

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @07:56AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @07:56AM (#440255) Journal

        Austerity measures are just a clever way to say

        "We borrowed too much and now we're at the mercy of our debt holders." Ok, it's not very clever.

        If you're complaining about the poor when austerity hits, then you're way too late - the US's debt holders are in control, not you. Now is the time. And I'll note that spending is always way out of hand no matter how much revenue is collected. That's why I emphasize spending reduction not revenue increase.

        But there is a higher level that I missed in my first sarcastic post. We have in Francis's post, the idea that because supposedly all of our spending is tax cuts and bail outs of the rich, then we need to raise the taxes on the "wealth hoarders" (whatever that is supposed to be) so that we have so much more money to spend on tax cuts and bail outs of the rich.

        It is so pure.

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday December 13 2016, @09:27PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @09:27PM (#441018) Journal

      > Like Social Security [...]

      You're insinuating that payments from the Social Security programme have exceeded payments into it, adding to the national debt, aren't you? The actual situation is that more money has been collected, ostensibly to fund Social Security, than has been paid out. The excess has been used for other purposes. In its place, special non-negotiable bonds are issued by the Treasury. It would be correct to reckon those bonds as governmental debt--but it's incorrect to say that that debt is due to spending by the Social Security system. The Social Security administrators project that the programme's surpluses will run out around 2034.

      https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html [ssa.gov]
      https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html [ssa.gov]

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:09PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:09PM (#441064) Journal

        You're insinuating that payments from the Social Security programme have exceeded payments into it, adding to the national debt, aren't you?

        Yes. This has happened off and on over the last few years. Without a substantial benefits cut, it will be a permanent part of Social Security going forward.

        The actual situation is that more money has been collected, ostensibly to fund Social Security, than has been paid out.

        It's pay as you go. The first thing they do is issue an imaginary bond and dump the revenue into the general fund. So it's irrelevant how much has been collected. The actual mechanics are that the surplus revenue from Social Security was spent as it was obtained.

        In its place, special non-negotiable bonds are issued by the Treasury. It would be correct to reckon those bonds as governmental debt--but it's incorrect to say that that debt is due to spending by the Social Security system.

        That is fantasy debt. The Social Security program and the US government haven't been doing anything to cover the actual liabilities that they're promising to pay back. If a real business tried to pull this crap, there wouldn't be any "but they say it'll be ok till 2034". People would be demanding reform now. Financial people would probably be jail for failing to implement GAAP accounting.

        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 14 2016, @01:44AM

          by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @01:44AM (#441116) Journal

          Yes. This has happened off and on over the last few years.

          From one of the pages I linked:

          Over the program's 80-year history, it has collected roughly $19.0 trillion and paid out $16.1 trillion, leaving asset reserves of more than $2.8 trillion at the end of 2015 in its two trust funds.

          Without a substantial benefits cut, it will be a permanent part of Social Security going forward.

          Something along those lines is predicted. A decline in the average lifespan would remedy that. So would an increase in the tax.

          It's pay as you go. The first thing they do is issue an imaginary bond and dump the revenue into the general fund. So it's irrelevant how much has been collected. The actual mechanics are that the surplus revenue from Social Security was spent as it was obtained.

          I think I see. The money collected through payroll taxes is irrelevant to you; only the money paid to pensioners is noteworthy. Hence you see the programme as a cost centre.

          The Social Security program and the US government haven't been doing anything to cover the actual liabilities that they're promising to pay back.

          Again, more money was collected in tax for Social Security than was paid out to pensioners. The difference has been used to pay for other activities. The "fantasy debt" (non-redeemable bonds) is owed to Social Security, not the other way round.

          If a real business tried to pull this crap, there wouldn't be any "but they say it'll be ok till 2034".

          As I understand it, not being a business was the rationale for Social Security. Company pensions aren't always well-run:

          Although he continues to work for the company that took over Penn Specialty, he has medical problems and is eager to retire. But his retirement savings, generated over a long career in the chemical industry, are tied up in his 401(k).

          “As long as they keep the accounts from us,” he said, “my wife and I are worried that they can dip into our funds and quietly consume them.”

          -- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/401-k-woes-when-a-company-goes-bankrupt-fair-game.html [nytimes.com]

          The suit alleges that Enron "locked down" 401(k) retirement accounts on Oct. 17, preventing employees from changing the investments they held in their accounts until Nov. 19.

          During that period Enron reported its first quarterly loss in four years and took a charge of $1.2 billion against stockholders' equity as a result of off-balance-sheet deals that later came under investigation by U.S. regulators.

          -- http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/401k/q_retire_enron_re/ [cnn.com]

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:31AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:31AM (#441156) Journal

            Over the program's 80-year history, it has collected roughly $19.0 trillion and paid out $16.1 trillion, leaving asset reserves of more than $2.8 trillion at the end of 2015 in its two trust funds.

            I wish you wouldn't pay attention to fantasy accounting. What Social Security eventually pays out to current and future participants will have nothing to do with those numbers. That is a sunk cost and no longer relevant to Social Security's activities which will be determined more by future revenue and costs.

            I think I see. The money collected through payroll taxes is irrelevant to you; only the money paid to pensioners is noteworthy. Hence you see the programme as a cost centre.

            You should too. I'll note further that it is a grotesquely inefficient service for what little it actually does and costs (drives US labor costs up by roughly 15% so old ladies don't need to eat cat food).

            Company pensions aren't always well-run

            Same problems are coming up with government pensions too at all levels of government. Social Security exhibits similar problems, particularly since government refuses to acknowledge the huge liabilities in the program.

            Something along those lines is predicted. A decline in the average lifespan would remedy that. So would an increase in the tax.

            Decline in average lifespan? Think about the conflict of interest that represents.

            And of course, why should we force future generations to pay more for the irresponsibility of past generations? Will that even stick down the road?

            • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 14 2016, @05:43AM

              by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @05:43AM (#441191) Journal

              What Social Security eventually pays out to current and future participants will have nothing to do with those numbers. That is a sunk cost and no longer relevant to Social Security's activities which will be determined more by future revenue and costs.

              It is indeed past, but it's relevant to whether the programme has been running a deficit.

              I'll note further that it is a grotesquely inefficient service for what little it actually does and costs (drives US labor costs up by roughly 15% so old ladies don't need to eat cat food).

              It sounds as though you are making a comparison to workers who don't save for their old age.

              Decline in average lifespan? Think about the conflict of interest that represents.

              Yes, but it may be happening:

              In 2015, life expectancy at birth was 78.8 years for the total U.S. population—a decrease of 0.1 year from 78.9 years in 2014. For males, life expectancy changed from 76.5 years in 2014 to 76.3 years in 2015—a decrease of 0.2 years, and for females, life expectancy decreased 0.1 year from 81.3 years in 2014 to 81.2 years in 2015.

              -- https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm [cdc.gov]

              And of course, why should we force future generations to pay more for the irresponsibility of past generations? Will that even stick down the road?

              One reason is that generations do exist: births and deaths aren't typically in equilibrium. Likewise, macroeconomic conditions vary. People in the "baby boom" generation paid heavily into Social Security to fund their parents' pensions as well as their own; they were able to do so because they lived in prosperous times.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:00PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:00PM (#441301) Journal

                It is indeed past, but it's relevant to whether the programme has been running a deficit.

                I already noted that Social Security transitioned to deficit only in the past few years and unless something is adjusted will continue to do so indefinitely.

                And of course, why should we force future generations to pay more for the irresponsibility of past generations? Will that even stick down the road?

                One reason is that generations do exist: births and deaths aren't typically in equilibrium. Likewise, macroeconomic conditions vary. People in the "baby boom" generation paid heavily into Social Security to fund their parents' pensions as well as their own; they were able to do so because they lived in prosperous times.

                That is a non sequitur.

                • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 14 2016, @08:36PM

                  by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @08:36PM (#441409) Journal

                  I already noted that Social Security transitioned to deficit only in the past few years and unless something is adjusted will continue to do so indefinitely.

                  As we touched upon before, the agency holds special Treasury bonds that only it can redeem. Were it a privately run pension which held conventional government bonds that anyone can redeem, I imagine that a fair-minded reader would count those bonds as having value. The table I linked to before [ssa.gov], which has data going until the end of 2015, shows their value increasing except in 1976 through 1981, and 1983. The other page I linked [ssa.gov] says that those bonds are interest-bearing, and notes that interest from them amounted to about 10% of the agency's income (emphasis added):

                  The OASDI reserves are projected to grow in 2016 because total income ($944.6 billion) will exceed total cost ($928.9 billion). This year's report indicates that annual OASDI income, including payments of interest to the trust funds from the General Fund, will continue to exceed annual cost every year until 2020, increasing the nominal value of combined OASDI trust fund asset reserves. Social Security's cost is projected to exceed its non-interest income by $73 billion in 2016, and annual non-interest income deficits will persist through 2090. The trust fund ratio (the ratio of projected reserves to annual cost) will continue to decline gradually (Chart E), as it has since 2008, despite this nominal balance increase. Beginning in 2020, net redemptions of trust fund asset reserves with General Fund payments will be required until projected depletion of these reserves in 2034.
                  [...]
                  The trust funds also receive income from interest on their accumulated reserves, which are invested in U.S. Government securities. In 2015, interest income made up 10 percent of total income to the OASDI trust funds [...]

                  Earlier you had written:

                  It's pay as you go. The first thing they do is issue an imaginary bond and dump the revenue into the general fund. So it's irrelevant how much has been collected. The actual mechanics are that the surplus revenue from Social Security was spent as it was obtained.

                  You seem determined to disregard the agency's bond income and define "deficit" as meaning that the money it receives through payroll taxes each month falls short of what it expends on disbursements and its own administration.

                  That is a non sequitur.

                  It should be, if we consider the bonds held by the agency as having value. But clearly you want to ignore their value. In an pension system of the sort you imagine, that held no investments but took in money through a payroll tax, the working people would, each month, bear the cost of the pensions paid out to an older generation. Leaving aside your assertion of "irresponsibility," one generation paying for an older generation's pensions would be inherent to such a system.

                  We can expect that unless a static equilibrium exists in the population of older people, the number of pensioners will vary over time. We can also expect that unless static equilibria exist for both the population of working-age people and for general economic conditions, the number of workers and their taxable income will vary. With the sort of system you envision that makes no investments, the inevitable fluctuations in population or in the economy will mean that some generations (ignoring administrative costs and ignoring what happens at the inception of the programme) pay more than they later receive, and others will receive more than they paid.

                  With the actual system, there are investments—admittedly of an unusual sort—which could in theory be used to even out such unfairness. However, due to the inception of the programme, due to the large population bulge that the "baby boom" generation represented, they essentially made double payments. That, I think, could have been managed better. Yet the programme, as I understand it, remains a popular one, almost a shibboleth. You had asked, "Will that even stick down the road?" which I take as a question of what people will put up with. I gave the example of the "baby boom" as an answer: they put up with quite a lot. Whether that will be true among later generations—or whether the programme's unfairness will again reach such a degree—are open questions.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 15 2016, @06:59AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 15 2016, @06:59AM (#441533) Journal

                    You seem determined to disregard the agency's bond income and define "deficit" as meaning that the money it receives through payroll taxes each month falls short of what it expends on disbursements and its own administration.

                    You should too. The bond income is purely imaginary. Every bit of revenue and "bond income" Social Security comes from current tax revenue. If a private company tried this accounting crap with a pension fund, someone would go to jail.

                    I gave the example of the "baby boom" as an answer: they put up with quite a lot.

                    About half the baby boomers (the oldest part of the group) will get back more than they put in for Social Security. That means they're putting up with less than you expect. Assuming benefits are not reduced to match input payments now, it will be the late baby boomers and subsequent generations that will have to deal with falling payouts from Social Security.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by toddestan on Sunday December 11 2016, @08:03PM

    by toddestan (4982) on Sunday December 11 2016, @08:03PM (#440042)

    The three big causes in the last 15 years for the increase in the debt or so are the Bush taxcuts (mostly benefiting the rich), various wars (benefiting the military-industrial complex), and various bailouts and stimulus spending since 2008 (mostly benefiting the banks and Wall Street). If it wasn't for those there things, we'd be in much better shape.