Business & Economy
Braley Urges House Leaders to Include Wind Energy Tax Credits in Year-End Tax Legislation PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Jeff Giertz   
Tuesday, 06 December 2011 14:02

Extending tax credit before end of next year would boost jobs and growth in wind energy sector 


Washington, DC – Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today urged Republican and Democratic House leaders to include legislation extending the wind energy production tax credit for another four years in any year-end tax cut extension deal.

Congressional leaders are negotiating an agreement to extend a number of job creation tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year, including a payroll tax cut and a biofuels tax credit.

In a letter to House leadership, Braley said that an immediate, four-year extension of the wind energy production tax credit would provide more certainty for the wind energy industry, encouraging increased investment and job creation.  Historically, investment in wind energy projects has collapsed when the wind energy production tax credit has been allowed to expire.

“Though the Production Tax Credit isn’t set to expire until the end of 2012, wind project developers are hesitant to schedule future projects without the certainty of having this credit extended,” Braley wrote.  “When the credit has expired in the past, the installation of new wind turbines dropped as much as 93 percent, with corresponding job losses.  By not waiting until the last minute, we can maintain certainty for investors and continue to create jobs in this growing industry.”

At the beginning of November, Braley introduced the American Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Extension Act, a bill that extends the wind energy production tax credit for another four years.  Without Congressional action, the existing wind energy production tax credit will expire at the end of 2012.

Wind energy is a major growth industry in Iowa.  Iowa is first in the nation in per-capita wind energy production, and second nationally in total annual wind energy production in megawatt-hours.  According to the Iowa Wind Energy Association, the Iowa wind energy industry already employs over 3,000 full-time workers.  That number could grow with a more certain investment climate for the wind energy.


The text of Braley’s letter to House leaders is below; a copy can be viewed at the following link:


November 29, 2011

Speaker John Boehner

H 232, U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20515


Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

H 204, U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20515


Majority Leader Eric Cantor

H 329, U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20515


Minority Whip Steny Hoyer

H 148, U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20515


Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, Leader Pelosi and Minority Whip Hoyer,

I urge you to include the American Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Extension Act, which would extend the production tax credit (PTC) for four years, as part of any tax extenders package that may be considered before the end of the year.  Extending this credit is essential to maintaining and expanding a domestic wind energy industry.

Wind is still a comparatively new energy industry and we must have a consistent and long-term federal policy to encourage continued investment. Even though the production tax credit isn’t set to expire until the end of 2012, wind project developers are hesitant to schedule future projects without the certainty of having this credit extended. When the credit has expired in the past, the installation of new wind turbines dropped as much as 93 percent, with corresponding job losses.

By not waiting until the last minute, we can maintain certainty for investors and continue to create jobs in this growing industry.

Wind has already had a positive impact on our economy and added 40 percent of all new electricity capacity between 2008 and 2009. It has provided a steady source of income for thousands of farmers and ranchers, with Iowa landowners making roughly $12.6 million per year leasing land for turbines. Additionally, over 400 manufacturing facilities across the U.S. now make major turbine components, towers, and blades. In Iowa alone, the wind industry supports more than 3,000 jobs with a combined payroll of over $70 million per year.

Wind energy is helping meet America’s increasing demand for electricity. Please consider a long-term extension of the wind PTC to make sure that this industry continues to create jobs and be part of a long-term solution to meet our energy needs.


/s/ Bruce Braley

Member of Congress


# # #

Statement From the Office of Governor Quinn on Budget Agreement PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Andrew Mason   
Tuesday, 06 December 2011 13:14

SPRINGFIELD – November 28, 2011. The Office of Governor Quinn today issued a statement after reaching an agreement on the Fiscal Year 2012 budget with legislative leaders.

“After working closely with the General Assembly this veto session, we have reached a bipartisan budget agreement that achieves the goal of keeping the seven state facilities slated for closure open throughout this fiscal year using existing state resources.”

“Reallocation will allow us to move towards the Administration’s long-term goal of more thoughtful, properly supported and successful community care transitions. We thank Senate President John Cullerton, Senate Leader Christine Radogno, House Speaker Michael Madigan, House Leader Tom Cross, and their staff members for their bipartisan cooperation and hard work.”


SEC-Citigroup settlement rejected, judge is right to seek information PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Grassley Press   
Tuesday, 06 December 2011 13:10
Monday, Nov. 28, 2011

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on a judge’s rejection of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s settlement with Citigroup.  Grassley works to gauge the agency’s performance on behalf of the investing public.

“Judge Rakoff is right to ask for information.  The SEC needs to provide a clear rationale for the enforcement penalties in this case and in others.  Otherwise, the public is in the dark about whether the settlements are adequate and the court’s role is reduced to a rubber stamp.   A settle and slap-on-the-wrist approach has not and will not deter the defrauding of investors.”

Harkin, DeFazio Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Cited in Krugman Column on Ways to Reduce the Deficit PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Sen. Tom Harkin   
Tuesday, 06 December 2011 12:58


To: Financial Writers
From: Kate Cyrul for Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA); Jen Gilbreath for Congressman DeFazio (D-OR)
Re: Harkin, DeFazio Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Cited in Krugman Column on Ways to Reduce the Deficit
Date: Monday, November 28, 2011

In case you missed it, Senator Harkin and Congressman DeFazio’s Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax was cited in today’s column by Paul Krugman entitled “Things to Tax.”  Analysis conducted by the Joint Committee on Taxation found that the Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act will raise $352 billion over the time period of January 2013 through 2021.  The Joint Tax Committee also estimated that the Act raises $218.6 billion in the last 5 years, on average over $43 billion per year.

For more information, please contact Kate Cyrul at (202) 224-3254 or visit or Jen Gilbreath at (202) 731-0063 or visit

The New York Times

The Opinion Pages


November 28, 2011

Things to Tax


The supercommittee was a superdud — and we should be glad. Nonetheless, at some point we’ll have to rein in budget deficits. And when we do, here’s a thought: How about making increased revenue an important part of the deal?

And I don’t just mean a return to Clinton-era tax rates. Why should 1990s taxes be considered the outer limit of revenue collection? Think about it: The long-run budget outlook has darkened, which means that some hard choices must be made. Why should those choices only involve spending cuts? Why not also push some taxes above their levels in the 1990s?

Let me suggest two areas in which it would make a lot of sense to raise taxes in earnest, not just return them to pre-Bush levels: taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions.

About those high incomes: In my last column I suggested that the very rich, who have had huge income gains over the last 30 years, should pay more in taxes. I got many responses from readers, with a common theme being that this was silly, that even confiscatory taxes on the wealthy couldn’t possibly raise enough money to matter.

Folks, you’re living in the past. Once upon a time America was a middle-class nation, in which the super-elite’s income was no big deal. But that was another country.

The I.R.S. reports that in 2007, that is, before the economic crisis, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money, and it wouldn’t be hard to devise taxes that would raise a significant amount of revenue from those super-high-income individuals.

For example, a recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out that before 1980 very-high-income individuals fell into tax brackets well above the 35 percent top rate that applies today. According to the center’s analysis, restoring those high-income brackets would have raised $78 billion in 2007, or more than half a percent of G.D.P. I’ve extrapolated that number using Congressional Budget Office projections, and what I get for the next decade is that high-income taxation could shave more than $1 trillion off the deficit.

It’s instructive to compare that estimate with the savings from the kinds of proposals that are actually circulating in Washington these days. Consider, for example, proposals to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, dealing a major blow to millions of Americans. How much money would that save?

Well, none from the point of view of the nation as a whole, since we would be pushing seniors out of Medicare and into private insurance, which has substantially higher costs. True, it would reduce federal spending — but not by much. The budget office estimates that outlays would fall by only $125 billion over the next decade, as the age increase phased in. And even when fully phased in, this partial dismantling of Medicare would reduce the deficit only about a third as much as could be achieved with higher taxes on the very rich.

So raising taxes on the very rich could make a serious contribution to deficit reduction. Don’t believe anyone who claims otherwise.

And then there’s the idea of taxing financial transactions, which have exploded in recent decades. The economic value of all this trading is dubious at best. In fact, there’s considerable evidence suggesting that too much trading is going on. Still, nobody is proposing a punitive tax. On the table, instead, are proposals like the one recently made by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter DeFazio for a tiny fee on financial transactions.

And here’s the thing: Because there are so many transactions, such a fee could yield several hundred billion dollars in revenue over the next decade. Again, this compares favorably with the savings from many of the harsh spending cuts being proposed in the name of fiscal responsibility.

But wouldn’t such a tax hurt economic growth? As I said, the evidence suggests not — if anything, it suggests that to the extent that taxing financial transactions reduces the volume of wheeling and dealing, that would be a good thing.

And it’s instructive, too, to note that some countries already have financial transactions taxes — and that among those who do are Hong Kong and Singapore. If some conservative starts claiming that such taxes are an unwarranted government intrusion, you might want to ask him why such taxes are imposed by the two countries that score highest on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.

Now, the tax ideas I’ve just mentioned wouldn’t be enough, by themselves, to fix our deficit. But the same is true of proposals for spending cuts. The point I’m making here isn’t that taxes are all we need; it is that they could and should be a significant part of the solution.

New Study on Impediments to Economy PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Business & Economy
Written by Cynthia Magnuson   
Tuesday, 22 November 2011 16:24

New Study Finds Economic and Political Uncertainty Top Impediments to Small-Business Growth

WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 22, 2011 — A new study examining impediments to growth in the small-business sector reveals that 72 percent of small-business owners would like to expand by adding employees within the next five years, but various impediments are currently standing in their way.

According to Growth – External Factors, a report prepared by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Research Foundation, uncertainty and weak sales are the two primary impediments to small-business growth.

“There is no question that small businesses are responsible for a significant portion of the job creation in our economy,” said William J. Dennis, report author and senior fellow at the NFIB Research Foundation. “Their growth and success is often contingent upon a litany of factors beyond their control – but within the purview of policy-makers in Washington. Impediments to growth may not be easily overcome, but if we are ever to bridge the gap between desired and actual growth, government officials must look at the problems small businesses face. Understanding the challenges should help with the formulation of policies that would help them to thrive.”

The study found that business uncertainty and weak sales—identified as the two primary impediments to small-business growth— are currently limiting the ability of many owners to expand. While economic concerns rank high in the minds of owners, a large number of small businesses also report that uncertainty is a significant factor in making business decisions. Not surprisingly, the single most important indicator that would renew small-business owner confidence in business conditions is increased sales in their businesses. This is a fact supported by NFIB’s monthly Small-Business Optimism Index report, which has identified poor sales as the top business concern for small firms for 16 quarters running.

Other notable survey findings include:

  • Uncertainty is a growth impediment impacting 61 percent of small employers; only 25 percent say uncertainty does not impact them. However, owners of the smallest firms and owners of the young firms were more likely to identify uncertainty as a concern than owners of larger small firms and more established firms. And while the majority of small employers who believe that uncertainty is a hurdle think of it as economic in nature (83 percent), a comparatively large number term their uncertainty as related to political questions. An extraordinary 51 percent who think uncertainty is an impediment to growth (38 percent of the small-employer population) blame the current political situation at least in part as obstructing their growth.
  • While the adverse impact of regulation is often challenging to identify, 40 percent of small employers say that regulatory or legal issues are an impediment to growth. The complex labyrinth of regulations as opposed to a specific regulation or set of regulations was more often cited as an obstacle, with 63 percent of this group (31 percent of the population) reporting that a current investment or project was impacted by a regulatory matter. One-quarter of those who find regulations to be a burden either cancelled a project scheduled for the next six months or abandoned investment and/or project plans.
  • Forty-one (41) percent reported the lack of finance as an impediment to growth and 19 percent ranked it a serious matter. Though 15 percent of small employers asserted that the lack of finance was their biggest obstacle to growth, 49 percent termed it a minor or no obstacle. More than half (53 percent) of small firm owners surveyed think that internally generated cash flows will be their most important source of financing desired investment over the next five years. Bank loans will be the second most common source. However, 33 percent of those identifying lack of finance as an impediment to growth say that existing financial obligations are “seriously constraining” their ability to finance desired business investment and another 44 percent say that it is constraining.
  • With the unemployment rate near 10 percent, finding skilled workers is still a struggle for small-businesses. Sixty-one (61) percent of those surveyed (24 percent of the total population) said the lack of skilled employees is an impediment to growth and indicated that they would hire at least one additional employee at the current market wage rate in the next six months if they could find people with appropriate skills. Over 37 percent (9% of the population) would employ more than one.
  • Just 15 percent of small-business owners cite the lack of a strong management or advisory team as an impediment to growth. Of the group currently possessing a management team, 47 percent are highly confident their current team can provide the necessary assistance to reach the firm’s growth objectives in the next five years. Most citing this impediment want to add management employees rather than to change the ones they have.

The latest NFIB Small Business Poll, Growth – External Impediments, is available at


<< Start < Prev 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 Next > End >>

Page 208 of 285