ProgressOhio

Green Energy Updates From Various States

Environment and Renewable Energy: As the Vermont National Resources Council reports, lawmakers passed a far-reaching energy bill to stimulate renewable energy projects. By passing H446, the Council says Vermont is the first state in the nation to create a state program for the development of small-scale renewable energy products through a standard offer contract. Broadly, the law uses a "standard offer contract" to guarantee a predictable rate paid by Vermont utilities for renewable energy. It authorizes municipalities to help property owners finance renewable energy projects through creation of "clean energy assessment districts" and strengthens standards for energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings. The bill also expands the Clean Energy Development Fund, which supports VT-based renewable electric energy projects and directs federal stimulus money to the Fund. Other provisions will ease restrictions on residential installation of renewable energy and energy efficiency devices.
Minnesota Energy: The Energy Stimulus Bill included $132 million for low income weatherization assistance, $9.5 million for energy-efficiency improvements in commercial projects and industrial facilities, and $2 million in grants to help businesses manufacture renewable-energy technology components. It also included equitable access for disadvantaged women-owned businesses and businesses of color; and reports progress on how weatherization programs have explicitly benefited people of color and low income people. (SF 550)
Nevada: Energy and the Environment: A package of bills on renewable energy was one of the few areas in which the Legislature and the governor's office reached consensus this session.
· SB 358 creates the renewable energy and energy efficiency authority and establishes the position of the Nevada Energy Commissioner.
· AB 522 extends and improves tax abatements for large-scale solar and other renewables. In an attempt to have the economic benefits pass through to Nevadans, the legislation requires that developers taking advantage of the incentives make a minimum capital investment in the state, create a minimum number of jobs, establish a minimum average hourly wage, and requires a minimum level of benefits, including health insurance to be provided to workers.
· SB395 is part of a package of measures aimed at transforming Nevada from a state that spends $9 billion on fuel costs and importing energy to a renewable energy exporter. The legislation encourages renewable energy development, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and requires state buildings to adopt energy and water efficiency standards. It also increases Nevada's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that at least 25 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2025 and requires car dealers to disclose the amount of carbon dioxide starting with 2012 models.
· SB114 ensures homeowner associations cannot restrict a homeowner's right to install and use solar energy systems on his property.
· SB 152 allows for the use of stimulus funds to train an approximate 3,200 workers to perform weatherization, energy retrofit projects and energy audits.
While the Federal Government drags it’s feet on renewable energies, it’s great to see individual states pick up the ball and move forward on renewable energy resources for the future!
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Energy standard boosts rural Kansas, Why Not Ohio?
BY CHUCK HASSEBROOK
A proposal that would increase wind generation of electricity is the most significant legislation before Congress this year for bringing jobs and revitalization to rural Kansas.
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., did the right thing last week by voting in support of a renewable electricity standard. It would require that a very modest 11 percent of the nation's electricity come from wind and other renewable sources. And Brownback stood firm when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee considered a number of amendments designed to weaken the boost for wind energy in the bill.
Western Kansas is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. Dodge City is the nation's windiest city, according to the National Climatic Data Center. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Kansas has the third-greatest overall potential among the states for wind-energy production, and western Kansas is the best of the best.
Neither coal nor nuclear provides the economic boost that rural Kansas needs. No area has a bigger stake in legislation before Congress to increase renewable electric generation.
Wind energy means increased economic opportunity in rural areas. A Department of Energy study envisions Kansas becoming a major exporter of wind-generated electricity. It concluded that ramping up wind generation to 20 percent of the nation's electricity would create 3,100 permanent jobs in rural Kansas.
Seven times that many jobs would be created during wind turbine construction. Farmers and ranchers with turbines on their land would receive rental payments of $21 million annually ($5,000 per turbine each year), and potentially more in profits, if allowed to share in the ownership of wind turbines.
Rural America -- especially the western Kansas wind belt -- would be a big winner from an ambitious standard for renewable wind energy production. So would the rest of the nation.
Renewable energy serves the common good. It addresses the very real threats of reduced crop production and extreme weather damage, including lives lost, from climate change.
Though there are skeptics, the world's leading climate scientists have concluded that it is 90 percent likely that fossil-fuel emissions are causing climate change. We won't know with 100 percent certainty until it's too late to do anything about it. That makes it imperative that we take commonsense, practical steps now, like investing in wind-energy development.
Wind energy is practical. The Department of Energy study, published by the Bush administration, concluded that building a strong national transmission system largely would overcome the problem of local variability in wind and wind-electric generation. And wind electricity is affordable. The study estimated that we could pay off the costs of the new turbines and transmission lines with savings in fuel costs, plus about 50 cents per U.S. household per month.
That's a small price to pay for significant progress in addressing the very real threat of climate change and revitalizing rural America.
Chuck Hassebrook is the executive director for the Center for Rural Affairs, based in Lyons, Neb.
Rural Areas across Ohio and all America can benefit from wind and solar power! That’s why a yes vote in the Senate will be important to all America when the Energy Bill hits the Senate floor later this year!

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party

www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

American Clean Energy and Security Act and the importance of agriculture’s inclusion in forthcoming climate legislation.

There were several key components of the American Clean Energy and Security Act that are critical to ensuring that agriculture will be a strong contributor to curbing the impacts of climate change including:
o A robust offset trading market will be widely available to producers. To ensure this type of market, the USDA will now implement this program with farm and forestry projects to offset carbon emissions from the capped sectors instead of the EPA. This will result in greater producer participation.
o Producers will have good opportunities to generate wind and solar energy, and to utilize digester technologies to producer biogas or electricity. Further, additional changes make biomass power generation more accessible to producers.
o Several provisions in the bill recognize pioneering producers who have already begun to institute conservation and stewardship practice that sequester carbon.
• This legislation provides the possibility for hundreds of millions of acres of farmland to be tended with greater conservation practices.
• Agriculture has a key role to play in US efforts to curb climate change and any legislation that is written for this purpose must include a role for agriculture. When the house votes again later this year on climate legislation, ask them to make sure that agriculture is included.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just another reason why a yes vote was important on this bill. Too bad Ohio Congressman Charlie Wilson who also lives in a rural area failed to see the benefits to farmers, but could only see the problems this bill would cause to his big time lobbyists in the coal industry. Charlie Wilson doesn’t support farmers in his district, He only supports Dirty Coal Lobbyists!

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green party

www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Healthcare for All
It is immoral for a country as wealthy as ours to have 45 million people with no health coverage, and tens of millions more with inadequate or overly expensive coverage. It also makes no economic sense; despite spending twice as much as other industrialized nations on healthcare, our system performs poorly because the private U. S. insurance bureaucracy soaks up nearly one-third of all health care money in waste, profits, paperwork and advertising. Poor health and poor health care are drags on the economy and job creation; up to half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by health care crises.
The Green Party supports Rep. John Conyers bill, H.R. 676, which establishes streamlined, nonprofit national health insurance--enhanced Medicare for All--that would negotiate drug and treatment costs. By replacing private insurers and recouping administrative savings of up to $300 billion per year, this single-payer approach provides topnotch health care to everyone. Care would be privately delivered by healers and hospitals, but publicly financed--with no bills, co-pays, deductibles, denials or medically-induced bankruptcies. The Green Party also supports health care initiatives at the state and local level that move us toward a nonprofit single-payer system.
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Ohio High court: Prevailing-wage law has limits
BUSINESS FIRST OF COLUMBUS
The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday shortened the reach of state’s prevailing wage law, ruling it applies only to companies working directly on public-improvement project sites.
The court in a 6-1 decision reinstated a Medina County trial court’s ruling in favor of Gene’s Refrigeration Heating and Air Conditioning of Medina. The company was sued by an area labor union representing an employee who worked in a fabrication shop that supplied products to a public construction project.
That employee allowed the union to mount its case in 2005, when it alleged Gene’s violated prevailing wage statutes by paying the worker and other employees supplying the project rates lower than union workers at the site.
The state law generally requires that employees working directly on government buildings and other public improvements must be paid at a rate similar to what union workers are paid for doing similar work in the region.
The Ohio 9th District Court of Appeals in Akron reversed the Medina County trial court’s decision before the dispute moved to the state Supreme Court.
Justice Paul Pfeifer was the lone dissenter in the decision.
Once again we see Ohio’s High Court rule against the lower , working, and middle class of Ohioans when it come to fair wages and pay. The Green Party opposes such court rulings!

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Republicans Call For 100 New Nuclear Plants
Written by Ruedigar Matthes
Published on June 25th, 2009

“We all remember this time last year,” said Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., at a hearing on Capitol Hill on Monday. “We were in the midst of an energy crisis, paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline, and Americans were seeing their utility bills skyrocketing.” Since then, he went on to say, the energy problems haven’t disappeared and no changes in policy have been made. He warned that, though the prices have gone down, if we do not make any changes, we will fall into the same hole in which we found ourselves last summer.
His solution? Nuclear. Stating that “the cornerstone of any real solution to the American energy problem needs to involve offshore resources and nuclear power…which generates electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions and has a minimal impact on the environment.” The first step to escaping America’s current energy crisis according to Wicker is to build more nuclear power plants.
The construction of such plants would generate jobs, which would stimulate the economy. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that building 45 new nuclear plants in America will generate up to 128,000 construction jobs and create up to 32,000 high paying permanent jobs. The benefits, then, of nuclear power would not only be escaping the energy crisis, but escaping the economic crisis as well.
Because of the said benefits, Wicker “fully support[s] the call for 100 nuclear reactors by the year 2030.” He called this goal aggressive because the United States hasn’t built a nuclear plant in 30 years. He stressed the fact that the U.S. needs to hop aboard the nuclear cruise ship into energy comfort by stating that Japan has a goal to built one nuclear plant per year and China currently has 24 nuclear plants underway.
Senator Wicker agreed that alternative “green” energy needs to be developed, but claims that those sources are insufficient and that they can only provide for a fraction of our energy needs. He called for a more “balanced” approach to meeting our energy needs, and feels that going nuclear is a plan on which all Americans could come together.
This comes at a time when a debate rages over energy; one side is pulling for 100 nuclear power plants while the other side is calling for a “cap and trade” energy tax, which Wicker calls “very risky” and “ill-advised.” What, then, is the answer? Is a dependence on nuclear energy the most efficient way to free ourselves from the current energy crisis? Or is it a tax plan? Perhaps neither, and perhaps both.

While the current new energy bill may not be perfect, this is the alternative, Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats like Charlie Wilson from Ohio calling for More Nuke and coal plants!
Support the Green Party! And help move America into the 21st century in Renewable Energies!
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Coal Has Peaked: Will This Impact The American Clean Energy And Security Act?
Written by Fred Etcheverry
Published on June 26th, 2009

Oil peaked several years ago. Now coal has peaked. The Costs of their production will soar when the global economy recovers and demand returns. Some say that this is a bad time to launch an ambitious energy policy as that envisioned by the American Clean Energy and Security Act. They claim that this Act will raise taxes, and cost jobs. At the time of this post, a draft of this proposed Act is a bill before Congress.
According to Brenda Pierce, head of the of a US Geological Survey team that recently conducted a study of US coal reserves, “We really can’t say we’re the Saudi Arabia of coal anymore.” (wsj 6-8-09) It’s not that her survey found less coal, but analysis shows that the cost of recovering it is escalating.
The DOE (Department of Energy) published a similar analysis on US oil reserves several years ago. Several studies of world oil and coal reserves have shown that these energy sources have peaked. That is, once the world economy returns to its pre-recession level, the price of fossil fuels will surge.
Before this recession oil was pushing through $120 a barrel and gasoline in the US was near $4 a gallon. Converting corn into ethanol to fuel our cars was causing grain prices to soar. The world was near a food crisis.
US oil, natural gas and coal (fossil energy) companies perpetuate the “energy independence” myth. According to this myth, importation of oil is our energy problem. Buying foreign oil is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history,” and “It sends money to governments that hate us.”
While the fossil energy companies grant that renewable energy will eventually replace fossil fuels, they claim that this is in the distant future and we must exploit natural domestic (fossil fuel) resources to solve current problems.
The fossil energy companies continue to stakeout land and push for offshore drilling to increase our energy supply, but the peaking of oil and coal mean that prices of these resources will rise rapidly as soon as demand returns.
This is a global problem. If the price of energy in the US rises then it will rise everywhere and dictators with oil will be able to accumulate even greater wealth and arms irrespectively of whom they trade with. Our standards of living will fall, as we must expend a greater amount of our wealth on energy.
Doctors say that pain is a friend since it is a symptom of what’s wrong and it motivates patients to seek solutions. Hopefully, as the cost of energy and food rise again, as they are beginning now, we will be motivated to seek solutions.
If we don’t solve this problem soon, the recovery will be strangled by the rising cost of energy.
Pay attention Charlie Wilson, your no vote on the Energy Act may hurt your district a lot more than a yes vote would have!

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Charlie Wilson: Dirty Coal Lover, Votes NO on Energy Bill


The House of Representatives has just passed a landmark bill that will propel our nation toward a clean energy future.

But, the really tough work has just begun. The bill will face tough opposition from Dirty Coal and Big Oil in the Senate and we will all need to work just as hard in the coming months to pass a clean energy bill.

And who voted NO and will lead Big Coal’s fight? Our very own Congressman from the 6th District, Charlie Wilson, who was very proud to cast a NO vote and told his voters the following on his web page:

“I wanted to let you know that I voted "no" on the bill.

I believe that coal must and will play a major role in our nation's transition
to energy independence. In Ohio, 86 percent of our electricity comes from coal.
And the vast majority of that coal comes from Appalachian Ohio. Because we are located in an area of the country that heavily relies on coal to turn on the lights and heat our homes, Ohio families and her energy intensive industries, like steel, will bear the brunt of the cost from this version of climate change legislation.”

Charlie Wilson proved today he is in the back pockets of the coal lobbyists and has no intentions of supporting clean renewable energies for the future.

Charlie Wilson is not qualified to be re-elected to Congress in 2010!

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party

www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen.

Model Green Jobs Legislation
With increased focus on the environment, and in the aftermath of the ARRA, hundreds of green jobs bills were introduced in the states this legislative session. Below is a sampling of some model bills introduced in 2008 and 2009.
· Washington has been a leader in the green jobs arena for the past couple of years. During the 2009 session, Senate Bill 5649 was signed into law. This law aggregates all federal Recovery Act dollars directed towards energy efficiency, and attaches labor standards. Community leaders, including those from faith-based organizations, non-profits, and unions, worked tirelessly on developing and passing this legislation alongside their state legislators. Among other things, the legislation puts Washington on the path to weatherize and otherwise make more energy efficient, 100,000 homes and buildings over the next five years. In addition, the law creates an Energy Efficiency Improvement Program, which will provide grants and technical assistance to neighborhood energy-efficiency projects throughout the state. The law also includes requirements that contractors employ workers from training and apprentice programs, pay prevailing wages, hire from the community in which the program is located, and provide opportunities to veterans and low-income individuals. For low-income weatherization programs, the law prioritizes programs which provide career pathways out of poverty and into construction trades.
· A 8377, introduced in New York, creates a Green Jobs Task Force, which will conduct a study of the state's green economy labor market needs, inventory training programs to identify gaps in existing programs, expand existing green jobs training programs, and target training towards disadvantaged populations through a variety of measures including ensuring access and establishing coordinated green career pathways.
· In California, the California Energy Commission adopted the state's first transportation Investment Plan. The Alternative and Renewable Fuels and Vehicle Technology Program's Investment Plan allocates $176 million over the next two years to stimulate green transportation projects and encourage innovation to help meet the state's aggressive climate change policies. The Alternative and Renewable Fuels Vehicle Technology Program was established by AB 118, which authorizes the Energy Commission to provide approximately $120 million annually over seven years to develop these new fuels and technologies and ensure that they are accessible to the public, and encourage motorists and fleet operators to purchase new advanced vehicles. In its newly adopted Investment Plan, the Energy Commission proposes to expand the use of low carbon fuels and cleaner vehicles that are available today and open up the market for the more exotic technologies that are required in the future. Over the next two years, the Energy Commission will invest $46 million for electric vehicles, public charging stations, and manufacturing plants; $40 million for hydrogen fueling stations; $12 million for advanced ethanol fuel production facilities and E-85 fueling stations; $43 million for natural gas vehicles, fueling stations and biomethane production facilities; $6 million for advanced renewable diesel and bio diesel facilities; and $2 million for propane vehicles. The Investment Plan also directs $27 million go to fund workforce training programs, research, public education and technical assistance programs.
· In 2008, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts signed HB 5018. The Green Jobs Act created the Massachusetts Clean Energy Technology Center to serve as the state's lead agency on the green economy. The Center will work to stimulate job creation in the clean energy sector, promote workforce training, and conduct market research to identify barriers to the clean energy industry and job training needs. The Green Jobs Act also established the Alternative and Clean Energy Investment Trust Fund to stimulate the growth of the state's green economy. Under the Act the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs is authorized to use $1,000,000 from the Fund in fiscal year 2009 for:
o A seed grant program for clean energy companies, institutions or nonprofit organizations;
o A workforce development grant program to award grants to universities and colleges, vocational technical schools or community-based organizations with existing or potential workforce development programs in clean energy;
o A pathways out of poverty initiative to award five competitive grants to clean energy companies, community-based nonprofit organizations, educational institutions or labor organizations for training programs that lead to economic self-sufficiency.
These state programs are a start to making America Energy Independent from foreign fossil fuels in the 21st century!

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Ensuring Green Jobs are Good Jobs
Green jobs are not simply band-aids to be used during difficult economic times, but are integral to our long-term economic growth. Therefore, while most of the conversations to date regarding green jobs have focused on the quantity of jobs, it is just as important to ensure that these new green jobs are quality jobs. Quality green jobs, should be well paid, have benefits and be career track jobs. According to Good Jobs First, by creating good green jobs, we can address not only plummeting unemployment rates and climate change issues, but also combat deeply rooted social problems, such as poverty and inequality.
Strategies for Creating Quality Jobs: The fact that many of the companies that will be pivotal in building our clean energy economy receive taxpayer support, either directly or indirectly, can be used to encourage more employers to embrace strong labor protections. Good Jobs First has outlined numerous actions state and federal leaders should consider to ensure that green jobs are good jobs, including:
· Attach self-sufficiency wage requirements to subsidies;
· Apply wage standards to government contractors;
· Strengthen prevailing wage requirements;
· Adopt best value contracting;
· Expand the use of project labor agreements;
· Add labor standards to LEED standards;
· Use claw backs to ensure job quality standards;
· Use web-based disclosure.
Providing Training So Residents Can Participate in a Clean Energy Economy: A clean energy economy and the jobs it creates will be limited by the available workforce. Although many green jobs will require workers either to transform their job skills so that they can be utilized by new industries or to obtain new skill sets, green jobs are well within the reach of lower-skilled and low-income workers if effective training programs and appropriate support are made easily accessible. Therefore, in order to ensure that residents have the skills necessary to obtain good paying green jobs, states need to invest in workforce development and worker training programs. The first step to crafting green job training programs is for states to identify the actual skills that their clean energy economy demands. Once a state identifies the skills that will be needed for their green economy, they need to develop or revamp training programs so that they prepare a qualified workforce.
State green job training programs should aim to, among other things:
· Create region and sector specific economic development that is locally sustainable. In determining high-demand industries to invest in, it is imperative to use good labor and industry data.
· Measure and evaluate performance to determine the success of programs and identify areas where improvements could be made.
· Build partnerships between industry, labor groups, government and communities that can help guide workforce development and tie training to practical experience.
· Tie economic development to community development. Develop career pathways that provide workers with accessible training in manageable increments that will help them acquire better jobs with higher wages and better benefits. Training programs should be created in a manner that accommodates family obligations and other challenges.
Some states and cities have already developed coordinated workforce development and training programs for green jobs.
· In 2008, the Governor of Washington submitted legislation that in part created a green jobs initiative. Three components of the legislation included a detailed analysis of the labor market to determine the kind and quality of green jobs in demand, partnerships of key stakeholders to develop strategic plans for closing skills gaps for green jobs in specific industries, and the establishment of a fund to pay for training and other worker support. The Legislature approved the bill and while changes were made to the original legislation, the link it establishes between climate protection and green jobs provides a good model.
· Oregon provides a good model for how states can implement within institutions and workplaces, education and training programs aimed at developing a skilled green workforce. Click here to read Opportunity Maine's Case Study of the Oregon program.
· The Los Angeles Infrastructure and Sustainable Jobs Collaborative has created a Green Careers Initiative. The Collaborative brings together community partners, such as industry, unions, and education institutions, to plan and implement a seamless education, training, and workforce infrastructure that connects low income and other disadvantaged populations to good jobs with career paths within the energy-utility industry.

By ensuring the Green Jobs are good jobs, we can put poor, working, and middle class Ohioans and Americans in employment situations which will help turn our economy around.

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Vindy.com Newswatch
Gov. Strickland gets berated on proposed cutsE-mail iPod Print ShareThisPublished: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 @ 1:30 p.m.

COLUMBUS (AP) — Constituencies from libraries to mental health advocates are berating Gov. Ted Strickland about more than $2 billion in cuts he’s proposed to the state budget.

From Cleveland to the steps of the Ohio Statehouse, the final days of budget negotiations are increasingly filled with angry advocates who say they’re shouldering an unfair share of the burden.

Strickland, a Democrat, has proposed cutting alcohol and drug addiction services by 28 percent and community-based mental health services by 34 percent.

The governor also has proposed a nearly 50 percent cut in funding for public libraries.

Strickland proposed about $2.4 billion in cuts, along with a gambling expansion he says will raise $933 million, to close a $3.2 billion gap in the two-year state budget.


This is good news for Gov. Ted for 2010???????

Fostering Good Green Jobs can Help Rebuild the Middle Class and Incorporate Job Creation into Community Development
Nationwide, wages are stagnant, manufacturing jobs are declining, and more than one in five working Americans hold poverty wage jobs. At the same time, the development of a clean energy economy presents us with an opportunity to create good-paying green jobs, such as machinists and technicians.
The Clean Energy Sector: States can help to rebuild the middle class by investing in the clean energy sector. As the clean energy sector expands, numerous jobs directly correlated with creating, storing, and distributing renewable power will be created. While currently this sector is less developed than more traditional green jobs, such as jobs in the pollution mitigation sector, it is growing rapidly. Predicted to be the backbone of the clean energy economy, if fostered and structured correctly, the clean energy sector can be one of the major pieces in the rebuilding of a stronger and more environmentally friendly economy.
Loss of Manufacturing Jobs Negatively Impacts the Middle Class: This year Michigan saw its unemployment rate climb to 12.6%, in part due to the closing of many Detroit-based auto manufacturers. In an attempt to rebuild its crumbling economy, Governor Granholm has created a "No Worker Left Behind" program, which in part, aims to create green jobs for Michigan residents. Michigan is not alone in its need to find replacement jobs for manufacturer workers. More than one million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost since December 2007, with a total of 4.6 million vanished since 1999. Many of these were the country's best middle class jobs. As these jobs disappear, with a substantial number of them going overseas, workers are often left unemployed or forced to take lower-paying jobs. The result is a shrinking middle class and a deepening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor in our country.
Investments in Clean Energy Can Help Rebuild the Middle Class: It is estimated that by 2016 the domestic market for clean energy products, such as solar panels and wind turbines, will reach $226 billion annually. Over the next 20 years, as demand for solar and wind power rises, approximately 70%-80% of new jobs created in these industries will be in the manufacturing sector. Like traditional blue-collar jobs that have been disappearing from our economy over the past decades, these green-collar jobs, if structured correctly, will pay family wages, provide benefits, and offer opportunities for career advancement. According to an Apollo Alliance report, for every $1 million invested in renewable energy systems, approximately five full time component manufacturing jobs are created. And for every $1 million invested in energy efficiency programs, three to four building-material manufacturing and five energy efficient appliance manufacturing jobs are created. In addition, even more "indirect" jobs, in areas such as finance, transportation, and installation, will be created as result of the sector's overall growth.
However, in order to benefit from the growing demand for renewable energy products in our country, the U.S. needs to invest in the necessary generation and production facilities, as well as worker training programs. For example, currently, about half of America's existing wind turbines were built overseas and the U.S. ranks 5th among countries producing solar energy components, despite the fact that the solar cell was created here. The U.S. must be proactive and focus our economic strategies on a green economy to fully capitalize on the opportunities at our fingertips and to ensure that we do not lose out to other countries who are prepared to deliver these products.
To bring back the middle class, Green jobs are a must for the 21st Century!
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Green Jobs Programs to Drive Economic Recovery
By Julie Schwartz
Over the past few decades, the U.S. has failed to invest in the growth of both urban and rural America, leaving many families and communities struggling to make ends meet. At the same time, we face an environmental crisis in the form of global climate change and the challenge of reducing our dependence on fossil fuel.
Our current economic crisis provides us an opportunity to reinvest in some of our countries most blighted areas. In the words of the organization Green for All, "new transit spending and energy audits in inner cities to windmills and biomass in our nation's heartland, green jobs mean a reinvestment in the communities hardest hit in recent decades." Correctly structured, a clean energy economy and green jobs can provide many low-income and currently unemployed individuals a bridge from poverty to economic independence.
For years, right wing activists propagated the myth that a strong environment and good jobs were incompatible. The result of this divisive strategy was the undermining of both wage standards and environmental planning. In recent years, however, environmentalist and labor advocates have formed new progressive alliances, working together to promote a clean energy economy with good green jobs that protect both our environment and our workers.
Now advocates for a clean energy economy and green jobs find themselves with a friend in the White House. Since elected, President Obama has repeatedly articulated a commitment to addressing climate change issues and developing renewable energy sources, both to improve the environment and also as tools to help rejuvenate the worst economy since the Great Depression. The $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, passed to stimulate our economy, was mainly focused on putting people back to work. Approximately $70 billion of this money was directed towards the nation's energy economy, most of it for "green" energy. Specifically, the stimulus plan will shift federal funds into several energy-related areas, including but not limited to: $16.8 billion for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs; $5 billion to install energy efficiency improvements in the homes of low-income families; $4.5 billion to develop a digital electric grid and $100 million for the training of electric grid workers; and $3.4 billion for fossil energy research and development. Even more recently, Vice President Biden announced plans to dedicate $500 million from the ARRA funds to train housing project residents to weatherize homes and perform other green jobs.
The economic recovery program could "create or save 2.5 million green jobs designing, building and maintaining renewable energy projects and increasing the energy efficiency of schools, homes and federal office buildings." According to a recently published report 100 Days 100 Projects, it appears that even in a relatively short period of time the stimulus money has had some positive impact on the green job market. According to President Obama, "[i]n these last few months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has saved or created nearly 150,000 jobs -- jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, making homes and buildings more energy efficient."
Economic Growth will only occur when America makes a 100% effort to go after Green
Renewable Energy Jobs for the poor and working class.
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Apollo Alliance: Green Jobs Update

Last week, Apollo Alliance Chairman Phil Angelides joined Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown on Capitol Hill to introduce the “Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act (IMPACT) Act of 2009.” The measure, which Sen. Brown hopes to enact as part of our new national energy policy, proposes a $30 billion revolving loan fund designed to help small- and medium-sized manufacturers improve their energy efficiency, retrain workers for clean energy manufacturing jobs, and retool plants in order to expand into the clean energy supply chain.
Senator Brown based his proposal on Apollo Alliance’s Green Manufacturing Action Plan (GreenMAP), which was introduced in April and lays out aggressive steps to scale up production of American-made clean energy systems and components while making U.S. factories more energy efficient.
The country’s manufacturers are poised to act on our recommendations. The recovery bill signed by President Obama in February, the appropriations bill enacted in March, and the budget agreement approved in April commit more than $300 billion to clean energy investment and green-collar job generation. These investments will provide vast new clean energy markets, but “without a program to support our own domestic manufacturers, policies that create new demand for clean energy will just lead to more imports,” explained Angelides.
IMPACT Act
We estimate that Sen. Brown’s IMPACT legislation, once enacted, will create at least 680,000 direct manufacturing jobs nationally and 1,972,000 indirect jobs over the next five years. “The domestic manufacturing industry helped build our nation’s middle class and is critical to national security,” said Sen. Brown. “It accounts for 12 percent - $1.6 trillion - of the U.S. gross domestic product and almost three-fourths of the nation’s research and development. Despite this, the U.S. manufacturing industry has contracted for 16 consecutive months.”
Click here to watch the press conference introducing the bill.
Earlier this month, Angelides, Apollo Alliance President Jerome Ringo, and Board Member Michael Peck joined several prominent business, labor, and policy leaders in calling on Senate leaders to make significant investments in retooling plants and retraining America’s manufacturing workers.

Letter to the Senate
“Including investments in domestic manufacturing in the energy bill will deliver economic rewards to all 50 states,” they wrote in a letter to members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “Some committee members hesitant to support the legislation may be pleased to learn that their constituents will benefit enormously. The states hit hardest by manufacturing job losses over the past few decades - states like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Missouri - are the ones that have the most potential for a revitalized manufacturing sector capable of making the clean and efficient energy systems that will be the backbone of the new energy economy.”
An aggressive program based on Apollo’s GreenMAP that focuses on manufacturing would benefit tens of thousands of U.S. firms capable of building the equipment and components of the clean energy economy, the majority of them located in the 20 states hardest hit by manufacturing job losses.
Green-Collar Jobs Are Here by the Thousands
A number of new studies of the clean energy sector, including one made public this month by the Pew Charitable Trusts, confirm that manufacturers and states all across the country are poised to benefit from a major federal investment. Pew researchers found more than 68,200 businesses across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, many of them manufacturers, and 770,000 jobs in the clean energy sector. Over the last decade, jobs in the clean energy economy grew at a rate of 9.1 percent nationally, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent.
Be sure also to keep track of the quickening pace of state and federal action on clean energy policy on our Apollo Blog and Daily Digest.
Take care and talk to you again next week.
Yours,

Keith Schneider
Communications Director
Apollo Alliance
keith@apolloalliance.org
Finally, an Ohio politician taking the lead on bringing green manufacturing jobs to the
Buckeye State and America.
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org

Green Jobs Can Make A Difference

Following on the heels of a study from the Pew Charitable Trusts last week, two more reports from a broad coalition of environmental groups and research institutes suggest that clean-energy investments have the potential to kick-start the economy and employ millions of workers — particularly those at the lower end of the economic scale.
In a statement accompanying the release of the two reports — one authored jointly by the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst; the other by the institute, the green jobs advocacy group Green For All and the Natural Resources Defense Council — the researchers assert that a “$150 billion investment in clean energy could create a net increase of 1.7 million American jobs and significantly lower the national unemployment rate.”
As part of their study, P.E.R.I. and the Center for American Progress provide a state-by-state breakdown of where jobs are most likely to be generated.
And Robert Pollin, James Heintz and Heidi Garrett-Peltier — researchers at P.E.R.I. — wrote on the center’s Web site on Thursday that the estimated 1.7 million jobs could make a significant impact on the nation’s jobless rate:
These job gains would be enough — on their own — to reduce the unemployment rate in today’s economy by about one full percentage point, to 8.4 percent from current 9.4-percent levels — even after taking into full account the inevitable job losses in conventional fossil-fuel sectors of the U.S. economy as they contract. Our detailed analysis … calculates that roughly 2.5 million new jobs will be created overall by spending $150 billion on clean-energy investments, while close to 800,000 jobs would be lost if conventional fossil-fuel spending were to decline by an equivalent amount. It is not likely that all $150 billion in new clean-energy investment spending would come at the expense of reductions in the fossil-fuel industry. However, we present this scenario to establish a high-end estimate for reductions in conventional fossil-fuel spending, and the net gains in employment that will still result through spending $150 billion per year on clean-energy investments.
The P.E.R.I. report joined by N.R.D.C. and Green for All, meanwhile, emphasized the impact such job creation might have on low-income and less-educated workers. Among their findings:
• Of the 1.7 million net increase in job creation, about 870,000 would be “accessible” to workers with high school degrees or less.
• Of those, about 614,000 would be jobs that present “decent opportunities” for advancement and increasing wages.
• The increase in jobs (and decrease in the unemployment rate “should raise earnings for low-income workers by about 2 percent.
Job creation among less-educated workers would be “seven times larger than the number of jobs that would be created in this category,” the researchers also concluded, “by spending the same amount of money within the fossil-fuel industry.”

Green Jobs can make a difference in bringing new jobs to the poor and working class in Ohio and this country!

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party

www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

New Rail Lines Spur Urban Revival



By AMY CORTESE
Published: June 13, 2009
WHEN it was incorporated in 1913, Carrollton, Tex., was a thriving farm community. Three freight railroad lines intersected to help farmers get their grain, livestock and cotton to market. Today this city of around 123,000 people, just 14 miles north of Dallas, is again looking to the rail lines for its economic prosperity.

Light rail lines are helping to revitalize urban areas like Larimer Square in the historic district of downtown Denver.

Central Platte Valley, a neighborhood near downtown Denver. Its development was spurred by light rail lines.
In April, the Carrollton City Council approved a $38 million mixed-use development next to a commuter rail station being erected downtown. The station is Carrollton’s main gateway to the 28-mile Green Line, a $1.8 billion expansion of Dallas Area Rapid Transit. After the line’s scheduled completion in late 2010, it will link Carrollton with downtown and southern Dallas
“Rail is the catalyst for this new growth,” said Peter Braster, whose title is transit-oriented development manager for Carrollton. “It’s important for the long-term sustainability of Carrollton.”
City officials hope the railway and new development — which will include four buildings with a total of 295 apartments, a parking garage, a public park and retail space — will breathe life into a city center that empties after dark.
The project in Carrollton is among many nationwide to be planned around new and existing light rail lines. These so-called transit-oriented developments, along with downtown revitalization plans, tap into a move toward more pedestrian-friendly, urban-style living.
While the credit crisis has halted many housing developments — notably subdivisions and stand-alone condominium buildings — some projects that are going forward are linked to broader revitalization or transit-related efforts.
“People have rediscovered cities and urban living,” said Shelley Poticha, the president of Reconnecting America, a nonprofit organization focused on integrating transportation systems with communities they serve.
The use of public transportation has been rising. In 2007, Americans took 10.3 billion trips on public transit, the highest number in 50 years, according to the American Public Transportation Association. And the Obama administration has pledged $8 billion toward high-speed rail projects as part of its economic stimulus program.
But some communities have been taking matters into their own hands. Ms. Poticha’s organization has tallied some $250 billion worth of light-rail, streetcar or high-speed bus projects being planned nationwide.
Many cities are inspired by the success of Denver; Charlotte, N.C.; Portland, Ore.; Salt Lake City and others in combining transit and development to revitalize downtowns and suburbs.
This past week, Denver has been host to an annual gathering of the Congress for the New Urbanism, a nonprofit that promotes alternatives to sprawl. When it last held its conference in Denver a little more than a decade ago, few people lived in the downtown core around the historic Union Station. Since then, Denver has embarked on a $4.7 billion expansion of its transit system, funded by a 0.4 percent sales tax increase approved by voters in 2004. The program, FasTracks, will add 122 miles of light rail, as well as new bus service, and is scheduled to be completed by 2017. The city is also overseeing a $1 billion redevelopment of Union Station.
Along the rail line, mixed-use communities have sprouted, such as Stapleton, a $5 billion development on the site of the former Stapleton International Airport, which closed in 1995. Shops and restaurants in downtown Denver are lively long after the workday has ended, and neighborhoods like Central Platte Valley, just northwest of downtown, are still being developed.
“It’s been transformative,” said Tom Clark, executive vice president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation. He anticipates 50 transit-oriented developments to be built around FasTracks over the next decade.
Urban-style development may be the brightest spot in a generally gloomy market. A recent survey of developers and investors by the Urban Land Institute for its annual Emerging Trends in Real Estate report found that urban redevelopment had the best prospects among all types of housing, while urban mixed-use properties and town centers scored high among niche property types. “These are the places that will be creating and holding value,” Ms. Poticha said. She said proximity to public transit could raise property values significantly.
“It’s moved from being an interesting idea to a core investment,” said Jonathan F. P. Rose, the president of the Jonathan Rose Companies, a New York-based developer and investor.
The most successful projects do more than build housing near transit stations. They take pains to create livable neighborhoods, with parks, paths, retail stores and places for people to gather. “Place-making is key,” Ms. Poticha said.
That often requires collaboration between local governments and private developers. Local governments might invest in transit, parks and infrastructure, revise zoning laws and offer financial incentives in return for a developer taking the risk of building in an unproven area.
Light Speed Rail is the key to redeveloping urban areas as well as bringing new green jobs to the poor and working class of American Society.

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Healthcare Costs Could Double


· Unless President Obama and Congress act, the yearly cost of a health care policy is projected to more than double by 2016, according to a new Ohio PIRG report. The report, "Health Care In Crisis," found that, even after adjusting for inflation, the average employer-paid family health policy is expected to rise from $11,381 in 2006 to $24,291 by 2016.

"The facts tell us that, left unchecked, health care costs will financially cripple American businesses and families," said Ohio PIRG Federal Health Care Advocate Larry McNeeley. "We need to act now before the problem escalates further."
· ========================================================

Green Party leaders and health care activists called for new federal studies on the economic feasibility and impact of a Single-Payer (Medicare For All, HR 676) national health care program. The study should cover overall and ongoing costs and savings, not just government spending.

Greens cited past studies from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budget Office in the 1990s showing that Single-Payer would reduce the cost of health care while covering every American. The Green Party will make health care reform and the demand for Single-Payer a major focus of the party's 2009 Annual National Meeting in Durham, North Carolina, July 23-26 (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=222).

According to a 1991 GAO report, "If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage." ("Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States," http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf). More reports are archived at pnhp.org (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all).

"The overall savings we'd gain from Single-Payer will boost the ailing economy and will cut bankruptcies by nearly two thirds," said Jody Grage, treasurer of the Green Party of the United States, who noted a recent Harvard study showing that "Medical problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent) of all bankruptcies in 2007" (Physicians for a National Health Program press release, June 4, 2009, http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/june/illness_medical_bil.php).

"The 'public health care option' supported by Sen. Kennedy and many other Democrats will leave the private insurance industry intact and lead to increased health care spending, especially if mandates lead to big taxpayer-funded subsidies for insurance and HMO companies and the high overhead they add to health care spending. We challenge Congress and President Obama to consult the GAO and Congressional Budget Office on the costs and benefits of Single-Payer," said Ms. Grage.

The Green Party has challenged Sen. Max Baucus and other Single-Payer opponents to hold a public debate, broadcast nationally, with Single-Payer advocates (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=221). Sen. Baucus has received more campaign money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries over the last four years than any other Democrat in Congress -- $413,000 since 2005, with only Republicans John McCain and Mitch McConnell receiving more (http://www.Consumer Watchdog.org).

Greens said that such a debate is urgently necessary because of the lies and distortions about Single-Payer and health care reform coming from the Wall Street Journal (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906160005), Conservatives for Patients' Rights, and other opponents of health care reform. See also "Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths" by Rhonda Hackett, The Denver Post, June 7 (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427).

"Apologists for profit-making insurance companies are dishonestly trying to paint Single-Payer as expensive and radical. In fact, Single-Payer is more fiscally conservative, because it'll eliminate the high overhead of private insurance. Secondly, Single-Payer allows full choice of physician, which will restore the American tradition of family doctors who get to know their patients' health care needs. Instead of an insurance company or HMO bureaucracy restricting treatment and referrals, Single-Payer will bring back the days when patients and physicians made decisions about medical care," said Justine McCabe, Connecticut Green, clinical psychologist, and co-author of statewide Single-Payer bill, 1999-2000 (http://www.gp.org/speakers/detail.php?ID=35).

"And finally, under a Single-Payer plan, no one will suffer financial ruin because of medical expenses," said Dr. McCabe.

"Unfortunately, President Obama and congressional leaders insist that we all spend more money on health care, with taxes on health-care benefits, to pay for 'reform' that would still leave tens of millions uninsured and underinsured. At the same time, they don't want Americans to hear about the benefits of Single-Payer -- even though they admit it would save money, cover everyone, and give us the right to choose our doctors," said Angel Torres, co-chair of the Maricopa Greens (http://maricopagreens.org), which held a Single-Payer rally in front of the office of Arizona Rep. Harry Mitchell on May 30 to persuade him to sign on as a co-sponsor of HR 676.
Dennis Spisak-Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Holding the Banks Accountable for the Bailouts

Following the collapse of major financial institutions this fall, Congress enacted a sweeping $700 billion taxpayer-financed bailout of the financial sector with the primary purpose of getting money to flow through the economy again through personal and business loans.

Now, months into the program--known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)--and billions of dollars later, no one knows how they spent the money, because there were few reporting requirements or restrictions on how it could be used.
Where Did The Money Go?
On Feb. 10, to highlight these failures and provide a framework to ensure accountability and oversight of the bailout, Ohio PIRG's federal tax and budget reform advocate, Nicole Tichon, published "Failing the Bailout: Lessons for Obama from Bush's Failures on TARP."

According to Tichon, the bailout never met its original goal to stimulate lending, and it never had a sustained plan to do so. It lurched from strategy to strategy without noticeable impact on the economy. For example, one day Citibank qualified for money as a healthy bank; on another, as a failing bank.

The report paints a picture of an industry running wild even as it asked for more and more taxpayer dollars. For example, Bank of America, which has received funds under three different TARP programs, sponsored a multi-million dollar Super Bowl party this year.
Fixing The Bailouts
On March 11, a month after releasing our report, Tichon was the only public interest witness to testify at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee hearing on TARP transparency. She summarized her findings and told the committee that:

• The picture for taxpayers is blurry at best and infuriating at worst. Evidence suggests that taxpayer funds were used for lobbying for additional funds, executive bonuses to be paid on profits that do not exist, and a wide array of corporate perks.

• Taxpayers deserve to know, in a clear and concise way, which reforms have occurred, to restore some level of confidence that the next $350 billion will be allocated and used fairly and productively.

• Without specific, proactive oversight, the TARP program will continue to fail. TARP fund recipients are not going to voluntarily provide reports on their actions.

"Taxpayers deserve to know what reforms will be in place before billions more are lost in a black hole of executive bonuses, lobby expenses and mergers," said Tichon. "If better oversight and transparency measures had been in place for the first installment, we'd at least know where the money went and why."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No more money for bailouts until we get clear transparency in what is actually going on with out tax dollars.

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Greens
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

Investment in Public Transit

Plans to improve public transportation across the country got a big lift recently, as lawmakers in Washington, D.C., committed more than $17 billion for high-speed rail and other public transportation projects.

"This investment marks a bold step for our nation's transportation system," said Ohio PIRG Federal Transportation Advocate John Krieger. "After decades of waiting, American high-speed rail is ready to leave the station."

Historically, the United States has spent nine times more on highway projects than public transportation. But with an aggressive push for transit by Ohio PIRG and our allies, record levels of transit ridership, and growing frustration with airports and traffic, that is changing.
Transit Projects Ready To Go
This February, as Congress debated President Obama's economic recovery package, Ohio PIRG made the case for more transit investment. In the end, lawmakers committed $9.3 billion to high-speed and intercity rail. This funding came on top of $8.4 billion designated for other public transit agencies.

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, states across the country have nearly 800 shovel-ready transit projects. From high-speed rail in California to a new commuter rail line between Columbus and Cleveland, the transit funding could help us begin laying the tracks.
But there's still a lot of work left to do. Later this year, Congress is scheduled to reauthorize the Transportation Bill, which could allocate nearly $500 billion in transportation funding over the next six years.

In the coming months, Ohio PIRG will be building public support and reaching out to our congressional delegation to ensure that Congress continues to make public transportation a top priority.

It's time Ohio makes a serious push for mass rail transit in the Buckeye state.
The cost of building mass rail transit is 4 times cheaper than building super highways and the less cars we keep on the roads, the less re-construction of highways and less air pollution will be two benefits of mass rail transit for Ohio and America.
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

House approves war supplemental
By Mike Soraghan and Walter Alarkon
Posted: 06/16/09 06:43 PM [ET]
The House passed a $106 billion war spending bill Tuesday after a day of intense lobbying by House Democratic leaders to persuade their most liberal members to vote in support of their president.

The 226-202 vote spared President Obama and House leaders an embarrassing defeat on a bill that Obama had made personal efforts to get passed. The bill had lacked enough Democratic support to pass only hours before.



The bill passed overwhelmingly last month. But controversial additions led to a barrage of vote switching and highly personalized lobbying by House leaders and Obama.

Only five Republicans supported the bill Tuesday, casting their yes votes at the last minute. Among Democrats, 32 voted against the bill, compared to 51 when it passed in May.

Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.), chosen by Obama to be secretary of the Army, voted for the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi voted for the bill. She had not voted on the bill last month.

The other four Republicans who voted for the bill were Reps. Anh Cao (La.), Peter King (N.Y.), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Candice Miller (Mich.).

In addition to about $80 billion to fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the bill includes $5 billion in new borrowing for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and $7.7 billion for flu pandemic preparations.

Republicans had strongly backed the bill when it first passed the House in May. But when the Senate added money for the IMF, Republicans turned against it.

"I strongly support funding for our troops," Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said during floor debate. "But I won't support a bailout for hostile regimes disguised as a troop-funding bill."

Republican leaders built a nearly solid wall of opposition to the bill, despite Democratic claims that they would be seen as failing to "support the troops." The Democratic campaign arm sent news releases to media outlets in the districts of targeted Republican Reps. Lee Terry of Nebraska, Kirk and Tom Petri of Wisconsin noting their support for previous war supplementals.

But the inclusion of the money sweetened the deal for Democratic liberals, many of whom had opposed the bill in May. Pelosi turned to many of those liberals to make up for the loss of Republican support.

In May, 51 Democrats opposed the bill, with 200 supporting it. With Republicans opposing it, she needed to convince 18 Democrats to change their votes to get the bill passed.

Democrats dismissed the Republican opposition as another example of obstructionism. They also dug up quotes from Republicans supporting IMF funding in the past, saying the issue is a red herring.

"We think this is largely a rationalization for the Republicans' expressed intent to oppose the funding for the troops," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

Lobbying on the bill had been intense. Cabinet members called lawmakers, and President Obama had pulled aside Blue Dogs at a White House event to enlist their support. Things became particularly intense and personal among Democrats as the vote neared Tuesday.

When Democrats filed into their caucus meeting around noon on Tuesday, Pelosi was still 10 votes short.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) put wavering members on the spot, calling out names from his whip list. He asked them in front of their colleagues whether they would support the bill. Despite Pelosi's plea that the president needed their votes, many said no.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told his colleagues that, "If we pass this, it will be our war." Ardent supporters of Israel, worried that the IMF money could wind up in the hands of Iran, said they would oppose it. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), a newer member who was among the most heavily lobbied by leaders, told leaders she wouldn't switch her vote.

"They kept saying 'no,' " said one member.

But the pitch worked on Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who came out of the caucus saying she would switch and vote yes.

"I do believe my president is a peacemaker," Schakowsky said. "I'm going to give him what he wants."

So a vote that had been expected in the early afternoon was pushed to later in the evening as House leaders scrambled to find the votes. Hoyer hedged even further, saying the vote could be delayed until Wednesday.

The 10 votes that Pelosi lacked is close to the number that Republicans thought they might lose going into the vote.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where Democrats are largely unified behind the measure. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and centrist Democrats had lodged complaints that it lacked a ban on the release of detainee photos, which the senators feared would inflame anti-American feelings abroad. Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had attached an amendment that included the ban, but it was stripped during Senate-House negotiations.

The senators' concerns were largely assuaged last week when President Obama assured them that he would seek to prevent the photos' release.

Lieberman plans to vote for the legislation, but he and Graham are still seeking to enact a ban on the photos' release in separate legislation, Lieberman's office said.

Many Senate Republicans, like their House counterparts, wouldn't commit to voting for the supplemental.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a staunch supporter of U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, said he didn't know which way he would vote on the bill. He took issue with the inclusion of $1 billion in discounts for Americans who trade in cars for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

McCain said the program, dubbed "cash-for-clunkers," should be stricken from the supplemental because it has "nothing to do with the war." He added that it goes against President Obama's commitment to fiscal responsibility.

"I was in the Oval Office, said to the president, 'Will there be earmarks, pork-barrel projects on the bill?' " McCain said. "He said no."

GOP senators are considering raising a budgetary point of order that could cut the cash-for-clunkers provision from the bill. If opposition to the point of order fails to reach 60 senators, the provision would be stripped out of the bill. The change would force the House to vote again on the new version.