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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (126410)	2/1/2001 10:00:15 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV, I am completely guessing here, but I think it has more to do with the parliamentary tactics. It's kind of like saying to the Democrats: You run the state, you fix it. They want to force all the Democrats to vote for it, including the tree huggers, "consumer advocates", etc. And based on a news story on the tube, the proposal (which turned I guess into this bill) has a lot of other components, with basically the state taking over a part of the power distribution, and the state running things, rather than just a deregulation of the rates to the consumers. Joe

To: GVTucker who wrote (126410)	2/1/2001 1:15:02 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 186894

"No way" US taxpayers paying Calif power debt-lawmaker WASHINGTON, Feb 1 (Reuters) - A top energy lawmaker in the U.S. House said Thursday that federal tax dollars would not be used to pay any of the $12 billion-plus debt accrued so far by California electric utilities to keep the lights on in that state. ``That will not happen. There is no way on God's green earth that is going to happen, for U.S. taxpayers to pay,'' said Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee. Barton told Reuters that Californians, not the American taxpayer, must settle the debt since the power crisis was created in the state and must be solved there. Barton spoke a day after Sen. Frank Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who heads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, warned that the federal government may end up paying generators to keep supplying the power-starved state. Murkowski said federal liability could result from an order originating in the Clinton administration, and recently extended to Feb. 7 by President George W. Bush, forcing regional power generators to sell electricity to near-bankrupt utilities Southern California Edison (NYSE:EIX - news) and Pacific Gas & Electric (NYSE:PCG - news). Barton said it would likely be up to California consumers to pay for utility debts, which accumulated over the last months due at least partially to a faulty deregulation plan, which does not allow wholesale power price spikes to be passed on to electricity consumers. Separately, the California Assembly was expected to try again later on Thursday to pass an energy rescue bill after the body rejected a measure earlier in the day by three votes. California is in the throes of an unprecedented power crisis, with daily threats of rolling blackouts as the state fails to meet demand. Executives from SoCal Edison, a unit of Edison International, and Pacific Gas & Electric parent PG&E Corp, told Murkowksi's committee on Wednesday both firms were unable to pay their bills due to the power crisis. Barton said he would travel to California with House Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin -- a Louisiana Republican - for private discussions on the electricity situation later this month or in early March. Barton also said a hearing would be conducted in Washington D.C. in his subcommittee later in February, centering both on the California crisis and contrasting that situation with states which successfully moved to deregulate power markets.

To: GVTucker who wrote (126410)	2/1/2001 4:03:52 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

OT, re: California power, Ben Stein's plain-spoken commentary on California's power situation. It all comes down to simple logic in conserving energy, logic that seemed to escape the average Californian citizen (or any other American citizen) in the past several years: usatoday.com By the way, GV, I really got a kick out of this comment of yours: <The logic given was that it would result in higher prices to consumers. Well, no sh*t. That's because power is more expensive right now.> Meanwhile, Ralph Nader and his "consumer advocates" are arguing for the state taking back control of utilities in California. As Ben Stein eloquently puts it, this is "surely one of the stupidest ideas of all time, as the state got us into this mess with its wacky ideas of fake deregulation." But I guess a Nader-style socialism seems all but inevitable now. Tenchusatsu

To: GVTucker who wrote (126410)	2/6/2001 10:12:43 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV and Thread - OT I thought some might be interested in the plans for the cuts in estate taxes. According to this morning's WSJ, Bush is said to be considering changing the cost basis date on stocks in an estate, from the current date of death to the purchase date/price of the equity. This is a compromise to get the rest of his estate tax program, which benefits only those that are wealthy, passed. Assume you bought Intel @ $5. Currently, when you die, your heirs would have a cost basis of the price on the date of your death. If this passes, and you left those Intel shares in your estate, your heirs would inherit the cost basis of $5., and own capital gains on the appreciation when they sell. Two points: 1. This "compromise" would effectively lower the estate taxes for the very rich, and raise the estate taxes for the middle class and those with modest estates. 2. There would be a disincentive for estate planners to recommend stocks, because of the tax burden to the heirs. Stock's become a less valuable asset with the new tax treatment. I find this "compromise" onerous, at best. If you agree, you might want to contact your Senator and/or Congressperson. For the Senate, the email addresses are listed at this sight: lib.umich.edu Sorry for the OT vent. John whoops sorry, this is the correct address for the Senate: senate.gov