Fracking Tom Corbett
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Fracking Tom Corbett
Just as Wisconsin's new Republican governor Scott Walker is paying back his mega-contributor Koch Industries by union-busting and even a sweetheart deal, comes now new Prennsylvania governor and Leslie Nielsen look-alike Tom Corbett with his own recording of "The Big Payback." According to news accounts, Corbett received at least $875,000 from the oil and gas industry in 2010, and so we now see this in 2011:
Gov. Corbett has made good on his promise to reverse one of Ed Rendell's last acts as governor: he has rescinded an effective moratorium on natural gas drilling on state lands.
The Pittsburgh Business Times reports today that the Rendell document called “Policy for the Evaluation of Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on State Parks and State Forests” has been rescinded and erased from the Department of Environmental Protection website.
The four-month-old policy required environmental impact assessments be conducted by the Department of Conservation and National Resources before a driller could apply for a permit with the DEP.
The question has arisen over the last couple of days...if Cairo can come to Madison, Wisconsin, then why can't Madison come to Harrisburg? The short answer is that it could -- and fracking could prove to be Tom Corbett's Waterloo.
Currently, thanks to the environmentally odious practice of fracking, Pennsylvania is now the largest gas-producing state in the nation that doesn't charge an extraction tax. This despite the fact that the state is facing a $4-5 billion budget gap. If Corbett decides to close that gap on the backs of state workers and the middle class and the poor, while giving his millionaire donors a free pass, then, well, it's time for the pizza-delivery shops of Harrisburg to brush up on their Arabic.
- He's delivered a stimulus that didn't reduce UE, a housing program that didn't stop foreclosures, and two years of record deficits.
— RG - his stimulus was highly successful (or worked as intended), most economists agree. The housing foreclosures are pretty much a right wing phenomenon, with 30 years of deregulation putting a major strain on our economy, and particularly housing. And the deficits are mostly due to a major decrease in tax revenue, not spending, and are a result of a major recession, which started under Dumbya, and will probably continue for the next 10 years, regardless of who is president. — recoveryroad
- When one claims that the stimulus will keep ue under 8% yet it hits 10%, calling it a success is putting lipstick on a pig. 30 years of deregulation? I'm sure you can cite some relevant deregulatory laws and their impacts. A deficit is always the result of spending more than you take in. If you make $100 and spend $80, you have a surplus, if you have a pay cut to $50, you'll have a deficit if you don't adjust spending. Obama is running record spending deficits. — RG
- yes, he made a "claim", but it was no promise, that ue would stay AT 8%, but obviously the recession was much harsher than anyone anticipated... so, is he responsible for the extra 2% of ue? Or do you just want to be adult about it and just say Obama did attempt to do something about it?? What is the real argument here? His lack of crystal ball skills?? And what about deregulation? How did the housing market actually collapse? Because poor people stopped paying their mortgage? IF you believe that, and makes you feel better, go ahead... it just isn't true. And the deficit? Well of course you can decrease spending, but we're $1 trillion down on tax receipts and the interest on the debt is not controllable either.. that's the real reason for the exploding debt. And tell me, why is the right wing suddenly so religious about deficits? It took them 30 years to wake up on this issue? Selective amnesia or outrage is what I call it.. — recoveryroad
- The argument here is that the stimulus missed its intended target yet you're still claiming it was successful. The housing market collapsed because it was a bubble, all bubbles pop. This bubble was built on cheap credit.
Thats the thing about tax receipts, they can go up and down. Therefore, its probably not smart for the federal government to be spending much above 18% of GDP, which is the long term average for tax receipts. Right now, the admin is spending ~21% of GDP, with it projected to raise to 23% by 2014.
— RG - Nonsense this continuous '8%' nonsense is the only leg the Repubs can stand on. It was a fair estimate at the time and it was an estimate - it was wrong but it was an estimate. The best way to analyze the effect of stimulus is to again estimate the baseline and apply an effective multiplier. J Bradford DeLong and Mark Zandi have proposed that the stimulus caused roughly 1.5 million people to be employed that would have otherwise have been unemployed. Real failure (sarcasm). The problem was the stimulus included too many tax cuts (multiplier less than one) and transfer payments to the state. Your micro analogy is of course nonsense as households don't have the same balance sheet. REVENUE was the largest part of the deficts and continues to be. — Murrayman
- The multiplier is a myth. Zandi and Delong are ASSUMING it exists and therefore plugging in the stimulus money spent to get their figures. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that those jobs were created or saved.
What works for micro works for macro. Don't spend more than what you take in. See my post above for historical figures re: tax receipts and spending as a percentage of GDP.— RG - Okay now it's a myth. That's a bold, solid quantitative argument there. There's no concrete evidence other than direct hiring by stimulus grants, and surveys of businesses. Other than that, no evidence - hilarity ensues. — Murrayman
- Anytime you can show concrete evidence that the stimulus created 1.5 mil jobs (which would be $530k per job. success!) have at it. Otherwise, re read your 9:57 post and all the vague terms in it. "estimate" "proposed" "roughly". Meanwhile, the facts are that unemployment increased despite the stimulus and still hovers around 10%. — RG
- Of course it had nothing to do with timing. Forget about when the appropriated money actually was distributed compared to when the unemployment rate reached 10%. Of course there is a high correlation between the highest GDP growth numbers (4th qtr. 09), hiring numbers, and the effective range of stimulus funding. In other words when the stimulus funds were distributed in the greatest amounts, GDP growth and hiring were strongest - looks like a bell curve with Q4 09 right in the middle. — Murrayman
- Government spending is a component of GDP, so of course GDP went up with the stimulus. Unfortuantely, we don't working in GDP factories cranking out GDP, so its not a sustainable bump. — RG
- The sad part is that even IF Zandi's numbers were right, that means it cost $530k+ per job created or saved. Calling that a success is a stretch. — RG
- You are assuming that all stimulus funds appropriated were used for direct spending in hiring. Roughly half the amounts allocated were tax and transfer, with the remaining amounts direct aid to states. Total stimulus appropriated/estimated amount of employed is not a very robust analysis. — Murrayman
- I assumed nothing. The "magic" multiplier takes these things into account. Tax rebates state aid, etc put money into peoples hands to be spent. Velocity of money, aggregate demand, and all that other nonsense. — RG
- Yes, 'magic'(again sarcasm). Hard to imagine someone unemployed and then hired has a very high marginal propensity to consume. Someone suddenly making ~ 35k spends nearly all of it buying essentials. What they don't hoard that new income? Strange, that notion. But otherwise yeah, partisan denunciations always trump Fisher's equation. (That 'other nonsense' would be price level and interest rates). MV=PY — Murrayman
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
