Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (121099)	1/6/2001 6:21:59 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 769667

Dear Westi: The SINGLE most IMPORTANT job of a NATIONAL government is to provide for the security of the Nation. That was actually the main force driving a UNITED states as originally the INDIVIDUAL states had FAR MORE POWER than today. The problem is to decide what is necessary for providing that security. I personally feel that the threat of the future is not Russia and probably not even China. The threat is Rogue nations with Bizzare leaders who get there hands on weapons of mass destruction without the brain power to properly supervise them. Example Iraq. If this fellow can get ahold of missles adequate to reach the USA can we believe that he would NOT be stupid enough to use one or two even if he knew the result while painful for us would be total destruction for him. I think he is that stupid. For reasons such as that I am afraid we are going to need SOME KIND of credible missle shield. Trouble is not only is it very expensive but it does pose a threat to nations like China and Russia. Its very complex question and I dont know the answers as to how to solve it. As to standing forces, I think we need a strong Navy and if it were me I would booster up the Marine Corps and Air force. I dont see the need for a large standing Army as that merely appears to be aggressive in Nature which I dont think anyone who truly knows the USA feels we are. I guess what I am saying is that there is more likelihood of brush wars than total all out global conflict. I would however maintain a large National Reserve. JDN

To: calgal who wrote (121099)	1/6/2001 1:05:04 PM
From: chalu2	Respond to of 769667

The wonders of deregulation and local countrol--localities cause nationwide power crisis: January 5, 2001 Floyd Norris: To Fix the Electricity Mess, More Power Plants Are Needed By FLOYD NORRIS (January 5, 2001) During the campaign, President-elect George W. Bush complained that the Clinton administration had no energy policy. He had a point. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush concentrated his fire on the highly contentious issue of whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drillers. Whatever the merits of drilling there, it will be years before the refuge produces usable amounts of oil and natural gas. The more immediate challenge for former Senator Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary-designate, will be to do something about the electricity mess this country is in. The most valuable thing the Bush team could do is to clarify the issues, and then force action. The issue is not whether markets work, as some would have it, and is only partly related to how badly deregulation was handled in many states, particularly California but also New York, where a hot summer could be disastrous. The issue is a simple one: there is not enough electricity being produced, and in some areas there are not enough transmission lines to get power to where it is needed. Talk about getting government out of the way, or about the wonders of markets, or of the need to relax regulation, is not what is needed. Instead, someone needs to take the lead in ensuring that enough generating capacity is built, and quickly. In the old regulated days, it was the responsibility of the local electric utility to assure that enough power was provided. Plants had to be built, whatever the hurdles. Over time, the hurdles grew higher. There were environmental concerns. The antinuclear movement stopped new nuclear plants from being built. Towns viewed plants as eyesores. When deregulation became the fad, many states decided to get the local utility out of the generating business. Instead, they said, the market would provide power. But the market is not being allowed to do that job. In New York State, demand is up 12.2 percent since 1993, while generating capacity is up 2.6 percent. There are proposals for 60 new generating plants, with a total capacity roughly equal to the current use in the state. If all those plants were to be built, there would be a glut of capacity. That won't happen. Each proposed plant has local opponents and there appears to be no sense of urgency. Just one of those plants has made it through the state bureaucracy, and that one faces delays in getting federal permits. There is a need for small new plants this summer in New York City, but it is not clear if the state agency trying to build them will succeed in overcoming local opposition. The situation is not as bad in some other states, but in many places the new market-based system has not produced the needed power. With shortages of generating capacity, those who own the plants are getting rich. The customers — and the economy — will be the losers. In California, where authorities are reluctant to let utilities pass on the costs, utility bankruptcies are possible. In sum, we now have the worst of all worlds. The market is not allowed to provide an adequate supply of electricity, but those who have power plants can earn big profits by charging prices that reflect the shortage. A reliable, reasonably priced supply of electricity is critical to the functioning of a modern economy, and there are few more important tasks for government than ensuring that such elemental infrastructure is available. It should be the top priority of the new energy secretary to get needed power plants built as rapidly as possible.