<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.newamerica.net" xmlns:dc="
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>TheStreet.com</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/75</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Terry Tamminen in TheStreet.com on Emissions Control, Companies</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2007/terry_tamminen_in_thestreet_com_on_emissions_control_companies</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-type-text field-field-body-copy&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;New America in the News:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Earlier this month, ConocoPhillips the first domestic oil company to join the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a corporate call-to-arms aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Until recently, big business has insisted that emissions reductions be voluntary. What, then, converted these companies into believers in government intervention?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For one thing, companies are realizing they will be affected by some sort of emissions control no matter how much of a fuss they make. Under voluntary controls, little progress toward emissions reduction has been achieved, aside from a handful of hybrid cars cruising clogged highways, feeding on a cocktail of unleaded gasoline spruced with ethanol...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The other factor convincing companies to support federal activism is their fear of the unknown. A host of regulatory options have been introduced that would have widely varying consequences for companies that emit greenhouse gasses...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Companies worry that operating under varying state systems would be impossibly complicated. For example, the automobile sector would have to build cars for the strictest emissions environment, because it couldn&amp;#39;t easily build different cars to fit different state rules...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;Businesses are now in the awkward position of seeking federal protection from the states,&amp;quot; said &lt;strong&gt;Terry Tammimen&lt;/strong&gt;, director of the Climate Policy Program at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based public policy group...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;For the complete article, please visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thestreet.com/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;TheStreet.com&lt;/a&gt; website. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/terry_tamminen/recent_work">Terry Tamminen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/75">TheStreet.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/956">Climate Policy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/3">Energy &amp;amp; Environment</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:48:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Communications</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5275 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Punting on Social Security Reform</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2001/punting_on_social_security_reform</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sounding an alarm bell about the nation&#039;s safety net -- &quot;the system is not sustainable as currently structured&quot; -- the report offered three potential options to set Social Security back on the road to insolvency. Each involved diverting a portion of Social Security payroll taxes out of government bonds (in which they&#039;re now invested) and into private accounts, which could hold stocks and bonds.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It concluded: &quot;Carpe diem!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not Much Optimism Now&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Good news for investors, right? After all, market pundits have long projected that privatized Social Security funds would someday flow into the markets like a mighty stream, thus causing stocks to&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2001/punting_on_social_security_reform&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/daniel_gross/recent_work">Daniel Gross</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/75">TheStreet.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/22">Retirement Security Program</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2005 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Washington Has the Wrong Medicine for Economic Stimulus</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2001/washington_has_the_wrong_medicine_for_economic_stimulus</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since Sept. 11, investors have looked to Washington for leadership on three fronts: monetary, military and fiscal. Thus far, the Federal Reserve and the Pentagon have acquitted themselves admirably in meeting the first two challenges. The Fed aggressively slashed interest rates, and the military unleashed the fury of American air power on the Taliban. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But so far, all parties in Washington -- congressional Republicans and Democrats as well as the White House -- have failed to reach a consensus on a fiscal response. Instead, casting nonpartisanship to the wind, both sides have proposed incompatible, easily caricatured &quot;economic stimulus&quot; packages. &amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2001/washington_has_the_wrong_medicine_for_economic_stimulus&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/daniel_gross/recent_work">Daniel Gross</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/75">TheStreet.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2925 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Terror on Wall Street -- A Look at a 1920 Bombing</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2001/terror_on_wall_street_a_look_at_a_1920_bombing</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Last week, two hijacked planes pierced the heart of New York&#039;s financial world, but inspired an outpouring of heroic and patriotic responses. To many observers, the events recalled the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To this history-minded financial journalist, the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and the reaction to it calls to mind a September 1920 tragedy that took place just across the street from TheStreet.com&#039;s headquarters. Until last week, that event stood as the deadliest terror attack in New York City&#039;s long history. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On Thursday, Sept. 16, 1920, a simple&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2001/terror_on_wall_street_a_look_at_a_1920_bombing&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/daniel_gross/recent_work">Daniel Gross</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/75">TheStreet.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2408 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Jumpin&#039; Jiminy Jeffords</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2001/jumpin_jiminy_jeffords</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;Until this morning, the only interest readers of TheStreet.com 
                  may have had in the career of Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont 
                  was purely trivial: Back when Adam Lashinsky was an infant journo, 
                  he was a tenant in the erstwhile Republican&#039;s Capitol Hill row 
&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2001/jumpin_jiminy_jeffords&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/daniel_gross/recent_work">Daniel Gross</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/75">TheStreet.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2001 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1977 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Capital Games?</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2001/capital_games</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The market giveth and the market 
                  taketh away. Investors large and small have learned this homily 
                  in the past year. Washington politicians -- on both sides of 
                  the aisle -- may soon be singing from the same hymnal. &lt;/p&gt;
       &amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2001/capital_games&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/daniel_gross/recent_work">Daniel Gross</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/75">TheStreet.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3227 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Yet More Sickening Health Care Bickering</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2000/yet_more_sickening_health_care_bickering</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The economic stimulus bill is dead, and blame is being cast about in Washington like so many lines off a Jersey shore charter. But the biggest losers may not be Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No, the debacle&#039;s largest victims may prove to be giant health insurance companies, like Aetna, UnitedHealth Group and Oxford Health Plans .&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After strenuous negotiations, Republicans and Democrats ultimately reached agreement on many components of the stimulus package: extending unemployment benefits, accelerating depreciation allowances for companies and speeding up the reduction of marginal tax rates. Health care turned out to be&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2000/yet_more_sickening_health_care_bickering&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/daniel_gross/recent_work">Daniel Gross</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/75">TheStreet.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2013 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
