West Virginia lawmakers are clamping down on corporations trying boost environmentally and socially responsible investing. A new report by EcoConsult Solutions finds their actions will likely cost taxpayers at least $9-million, and perhaps as much as $29-million dollars annually. Senate Bill 262, passed last year, restricts the state from investing in companies deemed to be energy boycotters. Among those boycotted include BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo.
Jim Kotcon, chair of the West Virginia Sierra Club, said restricting long-term financial investments in the form of bonds could end up costing residents and taxpayers by reducing the amount of money the state has for public services and programs.
"This appears to be an effort by the state government to help bail out the coal industry and to deny the real cost of climate change on West Virginia citizens," Kotcon said.
More than two dozen states are suing the federal government over a U.S. Department of Labor rule change on environmental, social and governance, or ESG, in workplace retirement accounts. The rule allows 401(k) providers to consider climate change and other issues when making investments.
Kotcon said environmental groups believe state investment funds should take into consideration environmental and social factors, especially since West Virginia communities are struggling to cope with increased flooding and extreme weather events driven by climate change.
"It has become sort of an extremist initiative," he said, "trying to penalize financial institutions that are attempting to do the right thing."
More than a dozen states so far have passed or have pending bills that would pull state funds from investments deemed to be adverse to the oil and gas industry, according to the report.
get more stories like this via email
This week's debt ceiling deal saw federal policymakers compromise on budget-related matters, but a new awareness campaign from a Wisconsin grassroots group calls into question the voting patterns of two members of the state's Congressional delegation.
Opportunity Wisconsin contends Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., and Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., are not putting the needs of their constituents first.
Meghan Roh, program director for Opportunity Wisconsin, said many Wisconsin families are still struggling with financial pressures, such as higher consumer costs. She feels their elected representatives need to be held accountable if their votes are seen as creating more barriers for household budgets.
"And their actions beg the question: Are they fighting for everyday working people they represent, or are they prioritizing corporations?" Roh asked.
The bipartisan debt ceiling deal was touted as a way to avoid an economic disaster amid steep budget cut demands from House Republicans. Both Steil and Van Orden supported the compromise plan, but the campaign noted they endorsed an earlier House version opponents said was full of harmful cuts.
In a response, Steil's campaign pointed to a recent op-ed where he stated he wants to balance helping consumers while limiting large spending bills.
He was directly responding to ads calling out the lawmakers for opposing the Inflation Reduction Act, which caps the price of insulin for those receiving Medicare. Roh hopes the campaign creates a pathway where voters can stay focused on important matters and not have to wade through a lot of the political rhetoric emanating from Washington.
"Our mission is to make sure they're aware of how their elected representatives are voting and how that will impact their daily lives," Roh explained.
For his part, Van Orden laid out why he supported the compromise debt-ceiling deal in a recent news conference.
"It protects the people that defended this nation, those are our veterans, and it defends the people that feed this nation, those are our farmers," Van Orden said. "It also protects the people who are most in need - the folks that get SNAP benefits."
The debt ceiling deal expands work requirements for some recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but added exemptions for others who rely on the support.
Disclosure: Opportunity Wisconsin contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Civic Engagement, and Livable Wages/Working Families. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A coalition of Wisconsin groups is asking Gov. Tony Evers to reject bills it contends would make it harder for people struggling to get by to bounce back with the help of certain public assistance programs.
More than two dozen organizations from around the state want the governor to veto a bill requiring BadgerCare recipients to renew their health coverage twice as often. They also want to see him veto a measure limiting unemployment benefits.
William Parke-Sutherland, senior health policy analyst for the group Kids Forward, argued the plans unfairly target people who need some type of public assistance. He added seven of 10 Medicaid recipients are already employed.
"And so, if state policymakers want to support workers, they need to address the real factors that make it difficult and sometimes impossible for workers to take more hours, and to get and keep better jobs," Parke-Sutherland urged.
For example, he noted expanding child care access would be a big help. Business groups supporting some of the bills said they would be more effective in addressing worker shortages. And GOP legislators point to a nonbinding referendum from the April election showing Wisconsin voters agree with the idea of work requirements for certain public benefits.
But skeptics like Parke-Sutherland pointed out there are already checks and balances built into many public assistance programs. He feels it is an attempt to avoid empowering low-income workers who are not getting the necessary benefits from their employers.
"They don't want to pay their workers fair wages, and offer lifesaving benefits like health insurance," Parke-Sutherland contended.
He added most people enrolled in Wisconsin's public assistance programs are white, but restrictions disproportionately affect people of color. In the last legislative session, similar bills were advanced by the Republican-led Legislature and were subsequently vetoed by Evers.
get more stories like this via email
Groups working to fight poverty in Alabama are urging state senators to approve a bill aimed at lowering food costs for families.
House Bill 479 proposes a gradual reduction in the state sales-and-use tax on grocery items from 4% to 2%, starting Sept. 1.
Carol Gundlach, senior policy analyst for the group Alabama Arise, emphasized the way Alabama taxes food products puts a disproportionate burden on lower- and middle-income working families.
She pointed out recent months of high inflation have made it an even more urgent issue.
"We estimate that people, just on the state sales tax alone, could buy an extra two weeks' worth of groceries if they were not paying the state sales tax for the groceries they do buy.," Gundlach reported.
Alabama, Mississippi and South Dakota are the only states still charging their full state sales tax rate on groceries, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, sponsored the bill, which has passed in the House and awaits a Senate vote.
Gundlach stressed although the measure would not entirely eliminate taxes on groceries, lowering them would be a positive step.
She acknowledged the challenge of completely eliminating taxes on food, since they're currently used to cover state education expenses. However, Gundlach's group thinks the bill presents an opportunity for Alabama lawmakers to responsibly reduce food taxes and explore alternative options for funding schools.
"So, we would like to either get rid of or reduce the federal income-tax deduction in such a way that if anybody gets that tax break, it's going to be the people who are kind-of middle income and need it the most," Gundlach explained.
Alabama is the only state allowing a full deduction for federal income taxes, which reduces taxes for the state's wealthiest population. Gundlach suggested eliminating the deduction could raise millions of dollars for public schools and replace the revenue from the current food tax, without imposing any additional tax burden on low- or middle-income residents.
Disclosure: Alabama Arise contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Health Issues, and Poverty Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email