You're watching...
Taxpayers for Common Sense V.P. Steve Ellis on how the government can reduce spending while helping the environment as well.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- had 700 billion dollars in government spending and it save the environment at the same time sound too good to be true.
Well that's -- a bipartisan coalition called green says there is once they've identified programs that are both wasteful and environmentally destructive.
-- Steve Ellis from the taxpayer for common sense it is one of the groups behind it reads as a coalition saying stop spending tonight.
Steve thank you for joining us I wanna get right to it how what criteria do you use to decide -- that a program is environmentally.
Harmful.
Well we have everybody comes together and so as taxpayers for common sense we sort of represented that scissors part of the green scissors -- and then.
But then that friends of the earth and what seems to be damaging to the environment but also is not not working properly and so we used in general -- -- Government Accountability Office reports.
Congressional research service reports and and other means and we've been doing this for awhile and so we've got a pretty good list.
OK well let's go down Leszek got in front of me here.
269.
Billion that you wanna cut from energy programs that's why these programs right targeting days.
Well in some cases it can be lake accounting gimmicks like furnaces -- oil and gas industries -- biggest user of last in first out accounting on this is actually just sort of allocation a way of of doing accounting is actually not allowed international accounting standards the -- it -- just changing that one provision.
In one and would save us more than seventy billion dollars over ten years.
-- but a lot of these other ones are tax breaks that have been on the books for.
For over almost a century now and so somebody is threatening -- raising the taxes for those oil companies.
Well we're gonna end and it increases revenue with the same so it's it's one side or the other side of the ledger any end.
This is something where it it it has that that particular benefit but other programs are spending you know or loan guarantees like for instance.
The title seventeen loan guarantee program which has -- -- as a very view protections inside bars and so it's like out Solyndra.
Was what -- -- came out of title seventeen but there's also nuclear side of that we wanna get word -- whole thing what is titled 78 in case we're not familiar with that.
-- -- that's this loan guarantee program where essentially the federal government says.
They will sign will cosigned -- loans for whether its nuclear power plant coal gasification facility or in the case -- Solyndra solar cell development.
And so when that company goes belly up like -- -- dead ended up costing taxpayers 500 million dollars.
We're concerned about eight billion dollars potentially going to some of the nuclear plants as well and so we eliminate that program that all adds up to more than 200000200 billion dollars over ten years cities -- you don't and it provide that insurance that and they won't go -- nuclear power general they go get a privately.
Yet -- -- note that they would just go ahead and get a privately you know I mean we're not against nuclear power for say we're against subsidies and we're actually.
Against subsidies you know energy's of these writ large should the the market has been so distorted over time that we've got.
Subsidies to encourage renewable -- energy development but -- -- Trying to decide when -- was possible for them to guarantee that loan elsewhere before you did not mean I'm not saying it's right -- to guarantee that Monday may be putting a lot of people out of -- I was just wondering if it's possible for them to get that.
That it I mean that assurance to get that insurance dollar that was the ads -- it's not a question is -- -- insurance although we do -- -- which is insurance for nuclear accidents but.
But essentially no this is a loan guarantee where they're trying to it to get this but the question is that the private markets not willing to take that risk on.
Why -- a federal taxpayer being asked to do it why -- -- -- -- on the program yep that's a fair point.
A 101 billion dollars for federal flood crop.
S crop subsidies what what we pay for crop subsidies.
Well I mean part of that is actually there's a program that was established in 1996.
Where it was called direct payments -- Regis essentially.
We're writing checks based on historic -- planting decisions and so.
Where the if you -- growing cotton corn rice or soybeans.
Com and lower -- you're essentially we're getting billions of dollars total it every year.
And so we eliminate that program entirely we also provide subsidized crop insurance on which.
It will allow growers to grow -- -- subsidized to protect -- -- 8080% of their of their revenue you know.
And sixty cents out of every premium dollar this crop subsidies comes from the federal taxpayer so they're only putting in forty cents were putting in sixty cents.
That's cost taxpayers eleven billion dollars last year.
Yeah -- that makes a lot of sense you're not getting away with that first one with the energy companies because -- those are -- are just raising their taxes but the rest of them.
Sound like good ideas thank you so much for coming on tonight talking about and I appreciate it --
