Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wonkbook: House votes for China tariffs; net neutrality bill dead; Elizabeth Warren's first speech

4140427851_9375a6b928.jpg In recent days, economist Adam Posen, a monetary expert, has been making a provocative new argument in favor of more aggressive intervention from the Federal Reserve: The issue is not just what the Fed can do, but what it can prevent from happening. Namely, serious efforts from the central bank are "an important insurance policy against political illiberalism and protectionism arising."

The theory here is obvious enough. Mix a bad economy with a helpless legislature and an angry populace and people are going to go searching for someone to blame. And Posen is being proven right: The House voted to allow tariffs against China yesterday, with one member decrying the "clique of gangsters" in Beijing. Something for Janet Yellen and Sarah Bloom Raskin, the newly confirmed members of the Fed's board, to think about. Welcome to Wonkbook.

Top Stories

The House voted to allow tariffs against China, reports Howard Schneider: "The House vote was overwhelming - 348 to 79 - and bipartisan. The rhetoric was sharp as members of Congress slammed the 'clique of gangsters' at the head of the Chinese government and argued that the United States was already fighting a trade war with the world's most populous nation. Joint trade between the two countries amounts to nearly $300 billion a year, but it is lopsided: The U.S. trade deficit with China was in excess of $200 billion last year. Opponents said the legislation, if enacted, could raise prices for U.S. consumers and was more about election-year politics than addressing the trade problems between the two nations."

Janet Yellen and Sarah Bloom Raskin have been confirmed to the Fed's board of governors, reports Corey Boles: "The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed two of the three outstanding Federal Reserve Board governor nominees on Wednesday night, filling key slots on the central bank's board. Lawmakers approved Janet Yellen as a member of the board, as well as vice chairman of the Fed, and Sarah Bloom Raskin as a member of the board. A third nominee to complete the Fed's board of governors, Peter Diamond -- an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- wasn't confirmed by the Senate, leaving lawmakers to consider his nomination when they return after the November mid-term elections."

Want Wonkbook delivered to your inbox or mobile device? Subscribe!

Senate leaders are conceding that renewable-energy legislation likely won't get a vote this Congress, report Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Voorhees: "Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Wednesday that the legislative agenda is quickly filling up for the post-election session, with priority going first to the START arms reduction treaty with Russia, tax cuts and the fiscal year 2011 omnibus spending bill. 'I think it's unlikely we'll have time to take up a bill that's controversial, that would take a longer period of time,' Durbin said when asked about the renewable electricity standard, or RES. 'Already, there are at least three in the queue. It's going to be difficult.'"

The Senate passed a stopgap spending bill, reports David Rogers: "A stopgap spending bill to keep the government operating for the next two months cleared the Senate Wednesday night--rolling over conservative protests that deeper spending cuts were needed... The underlying bill, approved 69-30 and sent onto the House, fills just 25 pages and reflects what’s been a bipartisan effort to avoid the costly add-on’s so famous in past continuing resolutions. Senate Republicans had a virtual veto over any new spending in the bill."

Net neutrality's main sponsor has declared it dead, reports Cecilia Kang: "In a statement, Waxman urged the Federal Communications Commission to reassert its authority to regulate broadband access providers. Doing so would allow the FCC to create its own net neutrality rules -- an effort that was thrown into doubt when a federal court ruled the agency overstepped its authority by sanctioning Comcast for allegedly violating broadband rules. 'With great regret, I must report that ranking member Barton has informed me that support for this legislation will not be forthcoming at this time,' Waxman said in a statement."

Britpop interlude: Blur plays "Tender" on Later with Jools Holland.

Still to come: Elizabeth Warren extends a hand to bankers; anti-EPA legislation is dead; senators are embracing Obama's suggestion to break the climate bill into parts; and a baby wallaby takes its first hop.

Economy/FinReg

Elizabeth Warren extended an olive branch to bankers, reports Brady Dennis: "But there is something you may want to know: I come to Washington as a genuine believer in markets and a genuine believer that the purpose of regulating the consumer credit market is to make that market work for buyers and sellers alike." She quoted from a speech that businessman Joseph P. Kennedy gave after he was appointed as the inaugural director of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the 1930s: "We are not working on the theory that all the men and all the women connected with finance, either as workers or investors, are to be regarded as guilty of some undefined crime. On the contrary, we hold that business based on good will should be encouraged."

Business groups are fighting the SEC's new rule on proxy votes in court, reports Zachary Goldfarb: "The petition by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, two of the largest business trade associations, targets a rule approved last month by the Securities and Exchange Commission that would make it easier for shareholders to oust directors on corporate boards and to nominate replacements. It also sets the stage for one of the first legal showdowns between companies and regulators over Washington's tougher approach to overseeing corporate America. Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul measure President Obama signed this summer, the SEC and other federal regulators are required to issue hundreds of new rules."

JP Morgan is freezing foreclosures, reports Ariana Eunjung Cha: "The bank's decision will affect 56,000 borrowers in 23 states where allegations of forged documents and signatures and other similar problems are being used to try to overturn court-ordered evictions. Yet the impact may be much broader, given J.P. Morgan's stature in the industry. If other banks adopt the same approach, the foreclosure process in many parts of the country will grind to a halt. Officials at Fitch Ratings, a credit-rating firm that measures the health of companies, said the 'defects' found in foreclosure documents at J.P. Morgan are industry-wide. Underscoring that concern, Fitch said it is considering whether to lower the grades it gives to the mortgage servicing divisions of the nation's largest lenders."

The fiscal commission will push earmark reform: http://bit.ly/acxutz

The Financial Stability Oversight Council is fighting over turf even before its first meeting, reports Damian Paletta: "A senior Treasury Department official forwarded an email from Mr. Geithner to roughly a dozen other government officials, people familiar with the matter said. In the message, Mr. Geithner asked for feedback on a planned FDIC rule on securitizations. He offered two options: The FDIC could proceed but have the rule conform to standards on which all regulators would later agree; or the FDIC could delay any decision for six months while regulators conferred...The email alarmed several regulators, people familiar with the matter said."

TARP banks are still sitting on $65 billion as the program is set to expire next week: http://bit.ly/aGdZgK

Treasury is near a deal on recouping taxpayer investment in AIG, reports Brady Dennis: "Under the terms of the agreement, Treasury plans to convert its $49 billion in preferred shares in AIG into common equity, effectively taking a 92 percent ownership stake in the company. The U.S. government currently holds a 79.8 percent stake. Any such conversion probably would not take place until 2011, and the government would subsequently sell its shares to investors over time. Under that arrangement, AIG's share prices will play a key role in how much money the U.S. government can recover for taxpayers."

Basel III is worth celebrating but still comes up short, writes Alan Blinder: "While the Dodd-Frank Act wisely removed most provisions in U.S. law that gave the rating agencies special exalted status, Basel III did not. So the agencies that did so poorly in rating mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations will continue to play major roles in the risk-weighting process. It gets worse. Didn't the Basel Committee notice that the internal risk models of most of the world's leading financial institutions led to disaster? Whether it was gross-but-honest errors in assessing risk or self-serving behavior is an important moral question, though not an important operational one."

Astronomy interlude: The most Earth-like planet yet found.

Energy

A key advocate for legislation blocking EPA regulations on climate change is conceding defeat, reports Darren Samuelsohn: "Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) acknowledged that his bid to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming policies is only a 'message' bill that doesn't have any chance of making it into law. Rockefeller has extracted a promise for a floor vote before the end of the year on legislation that would handcuff EPA’s ability to write climate-themed rules for two years on power plants and other stationary sources. But with aides to President Obama signaling that the White House would veto his bill, Rockefeller said he’s prepared for defeat."

BP is undergoing an executive shuffle: http://wapo.st/9Vh8Gs

Senators are embracing Obama's proposed strategy of breaking up the climate bill, reports Darren Samuelsohn: "From John Kerry to Lamar Alexander, the reaction on Capitol Hill to the president's remarks in a Rolling Stone magazine interview suggest there's room for compromise on energy and environmental issues when Congress returns next year...Kerry said he spoke this year with several key Republicans, including Alexander and Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, on a way to get short-term greenhouse gas emission reductions similar to earlier versions of his legislation."

Obama is planning a green charm offensive: http://politi.co/c1wfMV

"Heavy duty" auto emissions standards are due soon, reports Matthew Wald: "The Obama administration could announce a proposal as early as this week for new mileage standards for heavy-duty vehicles beginning in the 2014 model year. Separately, the administration is readying new fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles in the 2017 model year and beyond, after tightening standards last year for 2012 through 2016 models. The new standards would make it likely that technologies used in cars -- aerodynamic bodies, low-rolling-resistance tires, variable valve timing and hybrid electric propulsion -- would be introduced in box trucks, garbage trucks, cement mixers, school buses and tractor-trailers."

Adorable animals being adorable interlude: A wallaby takes its first hop.

Domestic Policy

McDonald's is threatening to drop health coverage because of health care reform: http://bit.ly/cQjfVX

The Postal Service is close to bankrupt, reports Ed O'Keefe: "Americans can still send and receive mail, but the U.S. Postal Service may not have much left in the bank after this week, as it's set to announce billions of dollars in losses as early as Thursday. It's also waiting for postal regulators to announce Thursday whether they approve of a proposed 5.6 percent postage-rate increase, to start in January. The proposed increase faces stiff resistance from business groups and lawmakers, who say that the USPS should instead make deeper spending cuts to meet its financial obligations."

Congressional Democrats will keep pushing immigration reform until the midterms: http://politi.co/a3ycIv

For-profit ed backers are organizing in DC, reports Nick Anderson: "Several hundred students and others connected with for-profit colleges and trade schools rallied Wednesday at the foot of Capitol Hill to protest a federal proposal to tighten regulation of career-education programs...The rally, organized by the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, showed anew that the administration's proposal has put a rare spotlight on a fast-growing sector of higher education often overshadowed by public and nonprofit colleges."

Wealth consumers are buying more fast food: http://bit.ly/bhbtVY

Waiting for Superman dangerously villainizes teachers, writes Diane Ravitch: "The claim that teachers can be accurately evaluated by student test scores has been refuted again and again by scholars. The Economic Policy Institute released a statement by many of the nation's leading testing experts warning that this method was riddled with error and instability. A study released days ago by Sean Corcoran of New York University showed that a teacher who was ranked at the 43rd percentile, using student test scores, might actually be at the 15th percentile or the 71st percentile because the margin of error in this methodology is so large."

Closing credits: Wonkbook compiled with help from Dylan Matthews and Mike Shepard. Photo credit: White HOuse

By Ezra Klein  | September 30, 2010; 6:40 AM ET
Categories:  Wonkbook  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Reconciliation
Next: Tom Toles is worth a thousand words

Comments

McD's is proving that a public option is the only way to ensure all Americans can get access to quality heath care.

Posted by: Lomillialor | September 30, 2010 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Are McDonald's execs also covered by these mini-med policies that the company is thinking of dropping?

Posted by: tuber | September 30, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

The Senate blocks Obama's ability to make recess appointments, schedules 'pro forma' sessions until Nov. 15.

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/democrats-agree-to-block-recess-appointments/

Posted by: grooft | September 30, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Lomillalor,

seriously? please explain to me how a public option would help reduce costs to affordability for people that make $7 an hour flipping burgers?

The best public option out there (MEDICARE) if handed to them even though they're not over 65 would cost $400-$500 a month per person when factoring in what expenses they could afford to pay after their premium cost.

Employee dumping on the exchanges will begin (and be heavily subsidized) come 2014 but until then these people are being HURT by PPACA.


Notice that Aetna refused comment. In other times (when Sec. Sebelius was not waving her finger at them or worse) they'd have spoken up and rightly said "I TOLD YOU SO"

A public option is USELESS in this situation.

Posted by: visionbrkr | September 30, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

vision

I've re-read my post several times and still can't find the word "cost" mentioned. You incorrectly think I proposed a solution to health costs when in fact I was referring to "access".

Nevertheless, there are a number of posts here on this blog by Ezra and numerous studies you can find on google that show that public option societies provide health care at lower cost than the US does.

But again, you are dragging me into a debate I care not for. I am more concerned with access than cost.

Posted by: lauren2010 | September 30, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Boycott McDonald's.

Boycott McDonald's.

Boycott McDonald's.

Boycott McDonald's.

Posted by: paul65 | September 30, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

grooft

That link is more proof that Reid is not really a progressive. He is an imposter. He is a ConservaDem.

This is one reason why I will forever after refuse to donate money to the Democratic committee. They use it to elect or re-elect ConservaDems.

Even Obama supports ConservaDems, as witnessed by his support of Blanche Lincoln in her re-election bid over a true progressive challenger even though Lincoln helped delay passage of Obamacare for a year and even tried to sabotage it.

Posted by: lauren2010 | September 30, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"Boycott McDonald's"

That sure isn't very painful to do.

Posted by: lauren2010 | September 30, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

check out the perino quote in the green charm offensive story, roughly: only the dorky libs vote on the environment anyway.

is an inhofe-platform sustainable?

Posted by: jackjudge4000yahoocom | September 30, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

lauren2010,

actually I was responding to Lomillalor's post unless you're one and the same.

cost=access unless you're talking about medicaid.

If you want to go to the 800,000 doctors and tens of thousands of hospitals, surgery centers et al and convince them all to accept what France's providers receive in reimbursement then sure we can talk about access and not cost. Or is it still the bogeyman insurers profits we're talking about??

But again giving access at a cost no one can afford is not possible.


The other option is that we could give them all fantastic union type benefits and then the price of a Big Mac goes to $20. Would that be more beneficial to you? How would the poor who too many survive on fast food afford that?

Posted by: visionbrkr | September 30, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Boycott McDonald's.

Boycott McDonald's.

Boycott McDonald's.

Boycott McDonald's.

Posted by: paul65 | September 30, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse


REALLY?

So you do realize that right now its not required to offer and many other fast food restaurants don't even give this to their employees right?

I'm not saying you shouldn't boycott McDonald's because their food is horrible for you etc but this is not the reason. Thinking shouldn't be this difficult.

Posted by: visionbrkr | September 30, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

oh and lookey what i just got in my inbox. Another unintended consequence of reform. less market players. Again i'm assuming its unintended and i'm also admittedly assuming it has to do with reform although i'd be surprised if its not.

http://image.unitedhealthcareupdate.com/lib/fefd167076600d/d/3/UHC-Principal_PressRelease.pdf

Posted by: visionbrkr | September 30, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"Namely, serious efforts from the central bank are "an important insurance policy against political illiberalism and protectionism arising."
The theory here is obvious enough. Mix a bad economy with a helpless legislature and an angry populace and people are going to go searching for someone to blame. And Posen is being proven right: The House voted to allow tariffs against China yesterday, with one member decrying the "clique of gangsters" in Beijing. Something for Janet Yellen and Sarah Bloom Raskin, the newly confirmed members of the Fed's board, to think about."

Clique of gangsters? Pot, kettle, black?

If the Fed actually can do a lot to boost economic activity, that trade deficit with China will go through the roof. Would certainly be a funny watching politicians try to explain how the tariffs were what helped the economy when the trade deficit with China doubles...

"When a similar currency dispute arose in the mid-1980s among the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan, the four allies settled it with negotiations that devalued the dollar and quickly trimmed America's trade-related deficits in half."

I'm sure China is well aware of the subsequent boom and bust Japan went through and will act accordingly.

In any case, the trade deficit rose from 4.0% of GDP to 5.7% of GDP from 2002-2005, despite a falling dollar. The trade deficit also fell from 5.1% of GDP to 2.7% of GDP from 2007 to 2009 despite a rising dollar.

While the price of the dollar certainly matters, consumer attitudes appear to be more powerful. If the Fed is trying to pump up domestic demand then it is entirely possible - rather likely in fact - that the trade deficit will rise.

The 1980s decline in the trade deficit was associated with a change in the trend of personal savings from 10% to 6% over 1983-1985 to 6% to 7% from 1985-1991. That change probably was the result of the dollar devalaution, though it was a powerful devaluation (~30% over one year, ~40% over two years).

If we force the price of Chinese imports up enough, the trade deficit with China will certainly narrow (though we might simply see a wave of Vietnamese imports after that), but the prices of cheaper consumer goods will rise more than wages. The typical lower middle class American will be worse off.

In any case, China won't take this lying down. It might respond to a tariff by targeting a weaker level for the Yuan, canceling orders for Boeing, or potentially something much worse.

Posted by: justin84 | September 30, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"Boycott McDonald's."

So hey, the poor slobs are already losing their (admittedly weak) health care plans, why not go for the gold and put them out of work altogether?

Posted by: justin84 | September 30, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

justin,

not only that but i'm sure those that frequent McDonald's currently would then turn to say Burger King or White Castle who may or may not offer any healthcare coverage. Way to go people!!! Consumerism is good until of course it goes moronic.

Posted by: visionbrkr | September 30, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"The other option is that we could give them all fantastic union type benefits and then the price of a Big Mac goes to $20. Would that be more beneficial to you? How would the poor who too many survive on fast food afford that?"

Visionbrkr,

Given how much exposure the government now has to health care costs, I'm sure putting McDonalds out of business / putting its food out of the reach of the poor would be looked at as a feature, not a bug.

"oh and lookey what i just got in my inbox. Another unintended consequence of reform. less market players. Again i'm assuming its unintended and i'm also admittedly assuming it has to do with reform although i'd be surprised if its not."

My guess would be intended. How else do you get political support for single payer except by throwing ever more wrenches into the gears of private insurance?

Break the private system (keep letting costs rise, cause a lot of havoc in the individual market) and support for a public one will naturally appear.

Posted by: justin84 | September 30, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"Namely, serious efforts from the central bank are "an important insurance policy against political illiberalism and protectionism arising."

Not if they're not effective. Note that Posen discusses Japan in the 1990s, but ignores Japan in the 2000s, when it engaged in massive QE to no avail. Besides, I'm not sure I want the Fed to expand it's mandate to include insuring against "political illiberalism", whatever that is supposed to be.

By the way. Banks ARE lending. They're lending to the federal government, which is sucking all the oxygen and dollars out of our banking system at the moment.

Posted by: bgmma50 | September 30, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

bgmma50,

See the link below. It provides pretty compelling evidence that QE worked in Japan, given the goals of the BoJ.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=2583

In addition, if I recall correctly, the 2002-2007 expansion was Japan's longest in the post war era (could be wrong though, this is on memory).

If it works, monetary stimulus might indeed be effective at keeping support for illiberal policies at bay (unless of course illiberal policies have already been enacted, which is an entirely different story).

Posted by: justin84 | September 30, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

justin84, the expansion died in 2008 when QE stopped. And the consequence? Japan has the highest debt per capita of any industrialized country. That's what QE and stimulus bought them.

Posted by: bgmma50 | September 30, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't argue that stimulus and QE doesn't buy you anything, but for how long and at what cost?

Posted by: bgmma50 | September 30, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

justin84, I read the article. I now understand your proviso "given the goals of BOJ". :) Doesn't look to me like "insuring against political illiberalism" was one of those goals, though. Nor was reducing unemployment or improving the economy, nor any of the things that advocates of QE in the US today are looking to achieve.

Posted by: bgmma50 | September 30, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"justin84, the expansion died in 2008 when QE stopped. And the consequence? Japan has the highest debt per capita of any industrialized country. That's what QE and stimulus bought them."

bgmma50

QE was ended in 2006 and I'm pretty sure Japan took a steep dive because of the collapse in global trade.

I'd argue that the debt problem was entirely the result of fiscal stimulus/deficits and I'd agree with you that fiscal stimulus was largely a waste and it put Japan in a pretty bad spot.

QE has it's own problems -- inflation risk and the fact it effectively steals purchasing power away from existing holders of the currency and of course the ever present risk that you end up feeding the next bubble -- but if you must choose between ARRA2 and QE2, QE seems to be the better choice.

In any case, even if QE works (and I'm not 100% convinced that it does) it might not be a good idea to do it now. We could wind up increasing the perceived effectiveness of things like ARRA and tariffs on China. It might well be for the best for the Fed to sit on the sidelines (more or less) and watch ARRA be discredited by a weak recovery.

Posted by: justin84 | September 30, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"but if you must choose between ARRA2 and QE2, QE seems to be the better choice."

The lesser of two evils. Agreed.

Posted by: bgmma50 | September 30, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

"It might well be for the best for the Fed to sit on the sidelines (more or less) and watch ARRA be discredited by a weak recovery."

I'm not a trained economist, just a very interested bystander, so take this for what it's worth. I think Bernanke will sit on the sidelines until Congress and the Administration hold up their end of this Faustian arrangement they've made and actually take meaningful steps to reduce the deficit. And this infatuation with QE that's being seeded around is nothing more than an attempt to pressure him to rescue them from the consequences of what they've done.

Posted by: bgmma50 | September 30, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Let's deal with issues with a clear head and round numbers:

Post Office: .50 cents a stamp is OK. Get er done.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.); I know you have to support Coal. How about the USA taxpayers give every coal worker at this time $50~80k a year for 5 years to reeducate themselves in Wind and Solar installation technologies and jobs and just eliminate the need for Coal mining while Global warming is a problem. America should also give generous subisdies to intall massive Wind and Solar facilities on the mountains of West Virginia and preserve the states natural beauty for "Wild and Advnenture" tourism.

Kick Coal to the curb, and embrace Wind, Solar, and Natural Beauty Tourism.

Posted by: Airborne82 | October 1, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Coal industry costs West Virginia state taxpayers nearly $100 million a year in 2009 after costs and benefits are fully accounted for:

http://www.wvpolicy.org/downloads/news_releases/NR062310.pdf

Massey Energy, paid an average of 5.6 percent of its profits in federal income taxes over the last three years, despite large profits (1/6th of federal 35% rate).

http://www.wvpolicy.org/downloads/news_releases/NR041510.pdf

At the Tiller No. 1 mine in Southwestern Virginia, Inspectors have noted more than 625 Life Threatening safety problems in the past three years. Regulators, operators wrangle over mine safety:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/06/01/ST2010060104486.html?sid=ST2010060104486

“The site is prone to cave-ins and rock falls, and inspectors have chronicled more than 625 serious offenses over the past three years that could pose an imminent threat to workers.”

Shame Shame Shame on the GOP for allowing Oil and Coal to Profit Hundreds of Billions annually on their ability to Pollute and pass pollution costs onto the American public, and to endanger and intimidate their workers on a daily basis.

Cheap Cole is not cheap, it’s just paid for by the Children, Rivers and Economy of States where the Coal Industry Cheats both the State and the Federal government out of Billions in taxes while complaining about taxes and regulation. The Truth Hurts to Polluters who want to pass Oil, Coal, and Gas Pollution and Poisons onto the Public without making the Polluters pay for it. It hurts the victims even more, especially when their pollution is enabled and sanctioned by politicians.

Coal is killing people while Biomass does not. Wind, Solar and Biomass can support Ten Times the Jobs as coal Strip-mining without Poisoning water supplies and fisheries unlike Coal which pollutes local communities where it’s mined and along transportation routes. The USA should be reducing Coal use and supporting Wind. Solar and Farmers growing Biomass for Energy.

Mining in Virginia supports less that 1/5th of 1% of jobs, and Virginia is a net importer of coal from West Virginia and Kentucky. Virginia is keeping coal workers in other states employed, while shedding agriculture jobs at home. What's up with that???

Posted by: Airborne82 | October 1, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company