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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (18751)	12/5/2003 9:53:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793691

They need to cut the Female component. They are really over their heads with it. These women get preggers and can't deploy. Plus can't deploy because of child care. Plus enormous other problems.

To: DMaA who wrote (18751)	12/5/2003 10:06:28 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793691

This will never happen. But it's nice to have it published. A chance to do something better Charli Coon is an energy and environment analyst at the Heritage Foundation When is a filibuster an opportunity? When failure by the Senate to cut off debate and vote on a $31 billion energy bill gives members one last chance to govern responsibly. It won't be easy. The $350 million in tax-exempt bonds for "green" development projects would have to go. That would mean Syracuse, N.Y., wouldn't get its subsidized-soybean-powered mall. And Bossier City, La., wouldn't get its riverfront development project that includes an "energy-rich Hooters" restaurant. And Iowa wouldn't get its million-gallon aquarium. Alaskans would have to be told that the $18 billion in loans needed to build a natural-gas pipeline would come without federal guarantees of repayment. Minnesotans would have to be told that a coal gasification plant will be built only if private interests finance it. The toughest task would fall to senators in the farm states of the Midwest. They'd have to tell their gasohol-producing constituents - or at least the board members at Archer-Daniels-Midland and ConAgra - that the federal government no longer will spend billions to drive up the price of gas, drive down the health of engines and prop up an industry that, absent huge subsidies, would fade into obscurity in months. The same goes for solar, wind, geothermal and biomass power. Billions in subsidies haven't made them remotely competitive. We've reached the point where they need to stand or fall on their own. Instead of the grab-bag approach, the House and Senate could take this opportunity to strengthen our energy infrastructure, supply and security. What would this mean? It would mean granting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) power to issue permits for interstate electricity lines in bottleneck areas. This would go a long way toward preventing blackouts such as the one that darkened states from Massachusetts to Ohio last summer. It would mean bolstering our security by opening energy-rich areas within our reach to exploration. Specifically, we need to tap offshore oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf, significant natural-gas reserves in the Rocky Mountains, and 2,000 acres of the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge above the Arctic Circle in Alaska. Some radical activists contend that exploration in ANWR would destroy the environment, even though 27 years of oil exploration at nearby Prudhoe Bay prove otherwise. Worse, they argue that there's not enough oil in ANWR to make it worth the risk. Nonsense. The mean estimate of ANWR's potential is 10.3 billion barrels. That's more than twice the proven reserves in all of Texas. Somehow, we manage to drill for oil all over Texas and work safely around its 22 million residents. But we're told we can't drill in ANWR, where 1,500 people live in an area the size of South Carolina, staking out 2,000 acres of treeless plain, where temperatures fall to 70 below zero and 58 days pass each year without sunlight. It doesn't seem to make sense because it doesn't make sense. Politicians make responsible lawmaking much harder than it has to be. All they have to do is tell people that they won't, on principle, accept pork for their vote. That they will, on principle, demand an energy policy that emphasizes supply and national security over picayune special interests and government subsidies. And that they'll do this because plentiful, affordable energy - more than any other identifiable factor - leads to economic growth, higher salaries and more jobs. They should tell voters that to vote for anything else is to abuse the trust those voters have placed in them. It's all they have to do. It might be tough the first time. But voters will get used to it. In fact, they'll probably come to like it. philly.com

To: DMaA who wrote (18751)	12/5/2003 11:17:46 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793691

Here is a "527" that will be pounding a good issue for the Dems. Ex-Clinton aides target GOP Group to highlight environment issues By Paul Singer Washington Bureau Chicago Tribune December 5, 2003 WASHINGTON -- A raft of former Clinton administration environmental officials has created a new campaign organization with the sole purpose of attacking President Bush and other Republicans on environmental issues in key states in the 2004 election. The group--called Environment 2004--includes former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Frank Loy, former undersecretary of state for global affairs. The organization is structured to take advantage of loopholes in campaign finance laws that allow independent interest groups to gather unlimited "soft money" contributions that candidates and political parties are no longer allowed to accept. In a demonstration of its strategy, the group is hosting its first major event Friday in Florida, featuring Browner, who was head of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection before joining Clinton's team. The group will unveil a report detailing what it claims are Republican policies that undermine the environment in Florida. With both major parties facing new restrictions from the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, independent "527" groups have sprung up to pump money into making the case for one side or the other. Environment 2004 makes little secret of its intention to push for the election of Democrats. The group's Web site maintains that "under applicable laws and regulations, Environment 2004 has an unrestricted ability to communicate with its members on matters relating to the 2004 elections, including asking members to organize rallies and get out the vote to benefit Democratic candidates." Democrats cite a string of actions by the Bush administration--ranging from the early decision to withdraw from an international global warming treaty to this week's news that the EPA is proposing weaker-than-expected rules for mercury air pollution--as evidence that the GOP favors industry over the environment. Heather Layman, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said Environment 2004 "is just the latest example of the Democrat plan to work outside the campaign finance system by using unregulated soft-money groups to defeat the president." Layman said Bush has a strong record of leadership on the environment, including proposing legislation to limit pollution from power plants and launching a strategy to develop hydrogen as a clean fuel source. Aimee Christensen, executive director of Environment 2004, said the group will choose its target states by "overlaying the predicted closeness of the state with where the issues resonate." Florida is a good example, she said, because it was so closely divided in 2000 and because there is a strong environmental ethic in the state. Other states the group is considering targeting include Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Wisconsin. The 527 groups--they get their name from the section of the IRS code that governs them--may be able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars that are now off-limits to the parties and candidates, said Jan Baran, former general counsel for the Republican National Committee. Even though the new law prohibits 527s from airing TV commercials in the two months leading up to an election, "they can do direct mail, they can do phone banks, they can do billboards, they can do print advertisements," Baran said. While Environment 2004 would not be allowed to expressly call for the defeat of Bush or the election of his opponent, the group "can be very critical of George Bush's environmental record and could be very complimentary of Howard Dean's," Baran said. usatoday.com