obama

USA Today has an interesting front-page piece today about the record amount that will be spent this year on U.S. elections -- $5.3 billion.

That's nearly $1 billion more than the 2004 election, and is fueled in part by Barack Obama's record-breaking fundraising prowess (which came, as has been well noted, at the expense of his early campaign promise to accept public financing).

But after watching Congress doll out $700 billion for a financial rescue, and all the talk of the Iraq war possibly costing as much as $1 trillion before all's said and done ... and on top of the mind-boggling number of zeroes that accompany any billion- or trillion-dollar amount ... it's hard to make rational sense of a number like $5.3 billion.

USA Today helpfully points out that it's less than what Americans will spend on Halloween in 2008, according to estimates by the National Retail Federation. We'll spend $6 billion on costumes, candy, fake cobwebs and scary music ... not to mention those ridiculous blow-up lawn ornaments. (Incidentally, you can look to The Daily Green for homemade Halloween costume ideas and good safe alternatives to candy.

It got me thinking about how election spending measures up against other American milestones. What follows is a look at how much is spent, per capita, by Americans (assuming a population of $305.48 million, with each spending equally). The numbers are from the National Retail Federation. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

Congress can spend less money than it did on the last economic stimulus package, create more jobs and help stave off catastrophe via climate change.

That's the gist of an authoritative new report from U-Mass Amherst and the Center for American Progress. Green Recovery outlines how to spend $100 billion over two years to create nearly 2 million new jobs.

Invest the same money in the oil industry, and you get just 542,00 jobs (and a commitment to more fossil fuel pollution). Invest the same money in tax rebates and you get 1.7 million jobs (and a whole lot more consumption).

"Why does this program create more jobs? One, this program is more labor-intensive. For every dollar spent, we spend more on jobs and less on machines, less on supplies," said Robert Pollin, director of the U-Mass Political Economy Research Institute. Second, he said, more of the money is spent domestically.

And, recall that the last economic stimulus package cost 68% more -- $168 billion. And by all accounts, that stimulus has now exhausted itself, as people paid off debts or bought gas or did whatever they did with the rebate checks that arrived earlier this year.

Unlike that one-off stimulus, this program would continue to generate or save money for years. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

John McCain's vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, made her big debut at the GOP National Convention Wednesday, when she accepted her party's nomination with a high-profile speech.

While her focus was on boosting McCain's reform credentials, downplaying Democrat Barack Obama's experience, and focusing as often as possible on national security, she touched on some energy and environmental issues.

Environmentalists have been critical, to say the least, of Palin's record. She supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (McCain has not), opposes listing the polar bear as a threatened species (as the Bush Administration has done) and has said she doesn't believe humans are responsible for contributing to global warming (contrary to virtually every credible scientist on Earth).

In her speech Wednesday, she spent roughly 15% of her words on energy issues. Here's a look at some of what she said:

1. "I suspended the state fuel tax."
   A reference to McCain's campaign pledge to suspend the federal gas tax during the summer driving season, Palin referenced her state-level initiative. Experts have roundly criticized this proposal as nothing more than pandering, since it would do little to affect prices and would obscure the silver lining in high energy prices: investments in greater efficiency, like smaller more fuel efficient cars. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?

When dollar figures reach into the millions, eyes tend to widen. Wow! That's a lot of money.

When they reach into the trillions, eyes tend to glaze over. Wow! That's just too big a number to comprehend.

The International Energy Agency said Thursday the world must spend $45 trillion over the next 40 years or so on an "energy technology revolution" if it is to find alternatives to oil and slow or stop global warming.

That's something like $3 billion a day, which brings the enormity of the task into focus. Somewhat. For context, Congress has proposed a U.S. budget that amounts to spending more than $8 billion per day in 2009 ($3 trillion for the whole year).

This spending isn't like a rent check. It doesn't just disappear. It's more like an investment in a new business. This is money put into new industries, new research, new technologies. You can't transform the way we generate energy without paying scientists to study, factory workers to assemble, engineers to operate and construction crews to install. ...

read more

comment | permalink | print | email |

share

reddit digg Del.icio.us facebook newsvine stumble What is share?