Letters: The future of Illinois and our nation is carbon-free energy
Edward Cross ('Global demand for energy is rising. There's no better place to produce it than America,' June 10) is absolutely correct that global energy demand is rising. In Illinois alone, data centers could increase annual electricity requirements by 30% by 2040. I agree that oil and gas will be necessary for the near future, and producing them here in the U.S. is the best option for our energy independence and national security.
It's unfortunate Cross' fossil fuel argument doesn't touch on Illinois, where we rank fifth in the nation for installed wind capacity. Illinois produces over half of our electricity from no-carbon sources, primarily nuclear and wind. and investment in battery storage and grid improvements can help integrate existing and future sources more effectively. Just like oil and gas, these industries provide good jobs to Illinoisans.
While it's true the oil and gas industry has made great strides in reducing its carbon emissions from production, don't let those numbers mask the fact that those fossil fuels still produce the same amount of carbon when they're burned. On top of that, fossil fuels alone cannot keep up with increasing energy demands, especially now that natural gas turbines are facing years of delivery backlogs. Restricting renewable energy will only increase the demand on oil and natural gas, raising their prices. These factors would combine for a nasty increase in energy prices. Allowing no-carbon energy sources to flourish lowers everyone's electric bill.
The future is here, and it's no-carbon energy. Solar and batteries accounted for 80% of new U.S. electricity generation capacity in 2024. Illinois clearly has options beyond fossil fuels to address our energy needs. Strengthening nuclear reliability, expanding renewables and improving grid efficiency can reduce dependence on oil and gas while keeping the lights on.House Republicans are scrambling to find $800 billion to help fund the extension of President Donald Trump's $3 trillion tax cuts — overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Their plan? Slash Medicare and Medicaid, moves that could strip 12 million or more people of health insurance and force rural hospitals to close.
There's a better solution: Eliminate the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture, a bloated, ineffective giveaway to the fossil fuel industry.
According to the nonpartisan Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 45Q will cost U.S. taxpayers $835 billion by 2042. If the industry's demands for higher credit rates and longer durations are met, that number could balloon to $3.8 trillion.
Ask yourself: Would you rather your legislators vote to preserve Medicare and Medicaid, or hand billions more to fossil fuel corporations that are already raking in record profits?
For decades, fossil fuel companies have enjoyed trillions in government subsidies — from tax breaks to unpriced environmental and health damages. These companies, among the most profitable in history, are also the leading contributors to climate change and deadly air pollution.
Carbon capture sounds promising on paper, but 45Q won't meaningfully reduce climate change. Most captured carbon dioxide is used for enhanced oil recovery — prolonging fossil fuel extraction. Meanwhile, the environmental damage and emissions continue. Climate-linked disasters are rising, and air pollution already kills millions annually worldwide.
Instead of throwing more public money at fossil fuel giants under the guise of climate action, Congress should invest in clean energy, resilient infrastructure and public transportation.
Readers can tell their senators and representatives: No health care cuts. No 45Q subsidies. No support for any budget deal that sacrifices essential services to fund giveaways for fossil fuel polluters and billionaires.
Let them know where you stand — before it's too late.As a Lyft driver navigating Chicago's streets through all conditions, I've witnessed how ride-share services have transformed transportation in our city. With the proposed city ordinance now pulled and discussions moving to the state level, we have a real opportunity to get this right.
I understand drivers' urgency about earning fair pay and having better protections. We work hard, often putting in long hours to serve our communities. The shift to state-level discussions opens the door for collaborative solutions that deliver results. Unlike city ordinances that may create conflicting regional regulations, statewide standards provide consistency and sustainability that both drivers and platforms need.
Minnesota's experience proves this works. When Minneapolis passed a local ordinance with very high minimum pay rates, ride-share companies Uber and Lyft threatened to cease operations, warning that dramatically higher prices would price out riders and leave drivers with fewer opportunities. Instead, Minnesota lawmakers brokered an enduring statewide solution through extensive negotiations involving all stakeholders, improving driver compensation while keeping services accessible.
Minnesota succeeded because stakeholders understood how this industry really works. They recognized that ride-share driving is fundamentally different from traditional employment — drivers value flexibility, work across multiple platforms and often drive part time around other commitments. Minnesota's solution reflected these realities rather than forcing ride-share into an outdated regulatory framework.
Illinois needs this nuanced approach. Effective protections might include portable benefits across platforms, transparent earnings information and sustainable earnings standards that provide certainty without reducing valued flexibility.
Companies are showing readiness to engage seriously. Lyft already demonstrates commitment through concrete actions such as guaranteeing drivers make at least 70% of weekly rider fares after external fees.
As a driver, I want continued independence, better pay, clearer protections and earnings transparency. But solutions work best when developed with input from drivers who live this reality, companies understanding operational constraints, labor advocates fighting for rights and policymakers creating sustainable frameworks.
The neighborhoods relying most on ride-share — historically, underserved areas — deserve policies that enhance rather than threaten reliable mobility access. I regularly drive Chicagoans depending on ride-share for essential trips where public transit is limited.
Illinois lawmakers can follow Minnesota's example, bringing stakeholders together for genuine collaboration. Let's work on solutions reflecting how ride-share actually works while providing real driver benefits and maintaining affordable, accessible transportation for all Illinois residents.Paul Vallas' regular op-eds in the Tribune have displayed the ongoing political evolution of a man whose career began in 'lakefront liberal' circles. Like Ed Koch, the 1980s New York mayor who began his political career as an anti-machine liberal, Vallas evolved to the point that his race for mayor was supported by the city's most conservative elements.
But Vallas' most recent op-ed ('We must not allow a repeat of 2020 George Floyd protests in Chicago,' June 11) on how Chicago should respond to possible protests against the Donald Trump administration's war against immigrants might point to one further evolution on his part. Vallas never mentions Trump, nor does he offer even a pro forma criticism of the gleefully thuggish approach Immigration and Customs Enforcement is taking.
Maybe Vallas is ready to evolve again, from conservative Democrat to Trump Republican.Thank you to Philip Milord of Western Springs ('Required reading') and Jon Boyd ('Waste a way of life') of Chicago for their very insightful and intelligent letters on June 13. I could not have said it any better!
I moved to Illinois from the East Coast, and it has been mind-boggling how this state has such a disregard for simple economics. Our grandchildren will carry this burden — if they stay in Illinois — but that actually would not be necessary if the governor and the mayor of Chicago would simply use the rule of 'we can't spend what we don't have.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Think you know the basics of retirement planning? Think again. ‘There's a lot of ignorance out there.'
For years, Jim Sexton has led financial-education classes at a local library. He's often struck by gaps in attendees' knowledge of retirement planning. 'Very few people understand what they need to know to help them prepare financially for the future,' said Sexton, a certified financial planner in Hudson, Ohio. 'There's a lot of ignorance out there about financial planning and retirement.' Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make. 'I'm at my wit's end': My niece paid off her husband's credit card but fell behind on her taxes. How can I help her? 'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will? As Trump blasts Fed to lower rates, it's the bond market in need of convincing I'm 51, earn $129K and have $165K in my 401(k). Can I afford to retire when my husband, 59, draws Social Security at 62? He administers a five-question 'retirement fluency' test to help pre-retirees assess their knowledge. The results prove his point: many people lack a basic understanding of money issues. For example, in Sexton's test, only 30% of respondents know how much of one's healthcare expenses in retirement are, on average, covered by Medicare and other government programs. The answer: about two-thirds. When it comes to money matters, ignorance is costly. As you age, your margin for error tightens up: You no longer have another few decades to earn income from work to offset any misguided (or disastrous) financial decisions. Aside from lacking a long-term horizon to make up for your mistakes, you need to lean on your own resourcefulness and knowledge to navigate financial uncertainties that can upend retirement. Examples include managing your investments to withstand ever-volatile markets, rebalancing your portfolio so you don't outlive your money and exercising sound, informed judgment amid aggressive attempts to sell you everything from annuities to Medicare Advantage plans. Read: I'm 55 with a state pension in my future. Do I have to save as much as other people? Social Security is another frequently misunderstood topic, Sexton said. Pre-retirees may overlook the 8% increase in benefits they get each year by delaying Social Security past their full retirement age (until they reach 70). 'They know that Social Security benefits are taxable,' he said. 'But they may not know claiming strategies or how benefits are calculated.' As you near retirement, you should receive a Social Security statement in the mail. It explains in plain English how Social Security works. A bar graph shows how much money you might collect based on when you claim benefits. Even well before retirement, workers should make sure they have registered for a my Social Security account as the agency migrates more of its services online. 'People still struggle with what role Social Security plays and when they should start it,' said David Shotwell, a certified financial planner in Lansing, Mich. 'They might say, 'I'll retire at 66 and start Social Security at 66'' without weighing all their options. It's also easy to underestimate the medical costs you can incur in retirement. Medicare helps, but it doesn't cover everything. The average couple will spend $12,800 in their first year of retirement at age 65. To estimate your total healthcare expenses during retirement years, use Fidelity's free estimator (but brace yourself for the shock!). Read: Medicare may actually be in more trouble than Social Security There are many so-called rules of thumb that preretirees treat as gospel. Like many advisers, Sexton scorns these rules. He calls the popular 100-minus-your-age rule 'absurd.' (It involves subtracting your age from 100 to determine the percentage of equities you should have in your portfolio.) With people living longer, there's more risk in prematurely shifting too many assets into bonds and cash equivalents. Investing more conservatively makes sense as you age. But that doesn't mean you should necessarily own more bonds at 75 than 65. Another misguided rule: Retirees should withdraw 4% of their total nest egg in their first year of retirement. From there, you supposedly withdraw an inflation-adjusted amount tied to the prior year. In theory, that means you should not run out of money over a 30-year retirement. But not so fast. 'People still rely on the 4% rule and they shouldn't,' said Thomas Van Spankeren, a Chicago-based certified financial planner. 'Just last week, a new client who was laid off in his mid-50s says, 'I did the 4% rule and I'll be OK.'' Read: I'm 48 and want to retire next year. Do I have enough money to last me until I'm 98? Instead, Van Spankeren suggested they customize a financial plan. The 4% rule is built on assumptions that may prove faulty, he says, so it can derail retirees' plans. Speaking of assumptions, you might assume seasoned investors in their 50s and 60s would acquire the wisdom to buy and sell stocks with prudence and patience. Again, not so fast. As they approach retirement, otherwise smart, successful investors can get caught up in mass psychology. If they missed the surge in stocks over the last 15 years or so, they may feel compelled to overload on equities now. 'For many years, it was all about TINA [there is no alternative],' Van Spankeren said. 'It's tough to stay disciplined, especially with performance-chasing' if you keep buying stocks and expecting big gains. Savvy investors, by contrast, adopt a broader perspective. They think in terms of TARA [there are reasonable alternatives], not TINA. Retirement fluency means keeping an open mind about all types of investments. If risk-free cash yields hover near 4% and investment-grade corporate bonds pay over 5%, exploring these and other alternatives can produce decent returns for retirees content to hit singles, not home runs. 'They should focus on the returns they need [in retirement], not the returns they desire,' Van Spankeren said. Read: The guy behind retirement's 4% rule now thinks that's way too low. Here's how much more money you could spend. Perhaps the most vexing issue for preretirees is predicting how long they will live. Consider one of Sexton's questions in his 'retirement fluency' test: 'On average in the U.S., how long will a 65-year-old man/woman live?' Only 32% of test takers pick the right answer: 84 for men, 87 for women. 'The biggest issue in financially planning for your retirement is your longevity,' said Ben Loughery, an Atlanta-based certified financial planner. That's why he analyzes a client's family medical history to predict their life expectancy. That serves as a starting point for estimating the portfolio performance they'll need to enjoy their retirement years. Read: Opinion: Annuities are looking good right now. So why aren't people buying them? I'm 75 and have a reverse mortgage. Should I pay it off with my $200K savings — and live off Social Security instead? 'I'm 68 and my 401(k) has dwindled to $82,000': My husband committed financial infidelity and has $50,000 in credit-card debt. What now? Why the biggest-ever 'triple witching' options expiration could deliver a jolt to Friday's trading Israel-Iran conflict poses three challenges for stocks that could slam market by up to 20%, warns RBC Tech companies lead list of double-digit gains in June for stocks in the S&P 500 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership scrambled on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. "The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts," she said. The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips and or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodge-podge of priorities, are drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would violate the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which the federal government has long provided. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO estimated savings of about $128 billion under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not been publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Some of the most critical rulings from parliamentarians are still to come. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on "current policy" rather than "current law" as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would violate the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would roll back Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the Defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
