- ‘Welcome to the edge of freedom’: Biden’s boots touch down in DMZ
- Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
Energy job losers could get windfall
Question of the Day
Workers who lose their jobs if the pending climate change legislation becomes law could get a weekly paycheck for up to three years, subsidies to find new work and other generous benefits — all courtesy of Uncle Sam — under a little-noticed provision of the bill.
Touted by its House Democratic authors as a jobs engine, the bill offers extraordinary compensation for those who would lose their paycheck as a consequence of its passage.
Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill’s “climate change worker adjustment assistance” program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019.
The bill passed the House a week ago in a hotly contested 219-212 vote, with supporters arguing that a principal reason to support the bill is that it would create millions of new jobs. But analyses from the political left and right argue that potentially millions of jobs in industries tied to traditional fossil fuels would be lost and, at least initially, not enough “green” jobs would be created to replace them.
Critics of the legislation seized on the unemployment compensation provision as proof that jobs would be lost.
“Can you name another jobs-creation bill that was so concerned about its potential impact that it preemptively included a benefits’ program for the millions of workers it expected to displace?” asked Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-oil industry independent think tank.
“This provision is an indication the transition won’t be as smooth and easy as supporters of the bill make it seem,” agreed Matt Letourneau, a spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.
The nation’s largest business group opposes the House bill approved last week but says it does support congressional action to deal with climate change issues.
While the analyses assume displaced workers will eventually find jobs, the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution predicts a net job loss of 0.5 percent over the first 10 years that carbon reduction legislation, called “cap-and-trade,” is in effect. The conservative Heritage Foundation found that by 2030 net job losses would top 1.1 million, while the Coalition for Affordable American Energy, an industry group, estimates that more than 3 million jobs would be lost by 2030 as a result of the cap-and-trade system.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, California Democrat, wrote the displaced-worker provision into the bill. He said it would be necessary during the transition into “green-economy jobs.”
“In a very important step, under our bill American workers will be able to take advantage of opportunities that will help them transition into the new sustainable careers of the future,” Mr. Miller said.
Supporters of the bill say the unemployment provision is a “safety net” and they do not expect unemployed workers to have to use it, at least in large numbers.
Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy for the liberal Center for American Progress, said the provision is similar to one in the Clean Air Act of 1990. “We learned that these types of assistance programs were not very highly utilized,” he said.
The legislation that cleared the House of Representatives late last week would mandate the use of “clean energy” sources while cutting the nation’s use of fossil fuels - including oil and coal. Fossil fuels emit large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
Displaced workers in industries that produce energy or are energy-intensive would be eligible to collect the special assistance. Employees laid off from facilities that mine, produce, process or use fossil fuels to generate electricity also could would be eligible for aid.
About the Author
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- Craigslist killers: Police say newlyweds stabbed man for thrills
- Obama: Hole U.S. 'digging out of' requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics
- Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Covering the world of soccer, including the World Cup, Major League Soccer, D.C. United and the English Premier League and other interesting sporting events.
Entertainment News and Reviews from Washington, D.C. and beyond.
Great discoveries in the world of restaurants and chefs fulfill the quest for delicious food and cooking.
Television commentary, reviews, news and nonstop DVR catch-up by Lisa King Dolloff and friends.
White House pets gone wild!