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: Done, gone. who wrote (507875)	12/13/2003 9:25:01 AM
From: Done, gone.	Respond to of 769667

Drilling Planned in Alaska Oil Reserve By Yereth Rosen ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Across the western Arctic sprawls an Indiana-sized land mass dotted with lakes, populated by migratory birds and other wildlife, and packed with potential oil riches. The National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPR-A), wedged between the foothills of the rugged Brooks Range and the icy Arctic coastline, is about 120 miles from the better-known Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The NPR-A was set aside 80 years ago as an energy storehouse for the U.S. military, but the reserve has yet to send a barrel of oil to market. The Bush administration hopes to change that and is pushing an ambitious strategy for oil development in the NPR-A as Congress refuses to open drilling in ANWR. Plans recently drafted by the U.S. Bureau of LandManagement (news - web sites) (BLM) would open vast stretches of the 23 million-acre NPR-A to new oil drilling and relax environmental restrictions in other areas where leases already exist. With oil development expanding west from Prudhoe Bay, the focus on the petroleum reserve makes sense, said Henri Bisson, the BLM's Alaska director. "It's just a natural progression. The time is right for exploration in the NPR-A," he said. The BLM wants to open 8.8 million acres in the reserve's northwestern third to oil development. That plan would replace specific regulations -- like those limiting truck travel over the delicate tundra and restrictions on drilling in rivers and streams -- with more general guidelines. The proposal is cheered by industry backers. They have high hopes for the reserve, which could hold 5.9 billion to 13.2 billion barrels of oil, according to government estimates. "The future of our industry and the future of our state will really lie in the development of the NPR-A," Mark Huber, vice president of the oil field service company Doyon Universal Services, said at a recent Anchorage public hearing. But environmentalists have a different view. A 'LEASE EVERYTHING' STRATEGY "I don't know whether there is a strategy, other than "lease everything'," said Stan Senner, director of Alaska Audubon. Senner's remark comes as the BLM is proposing to change environmental safeguards in the reserve's northeast section to match the more general ones proposed for the northwest. The northeast section is where companies have leased nearly 1.5 million acres for exploration during the past four years. The BLM may also allow drilling in and around the vast Teskekpuk Lake, which sits near the Arctic coastline and is currently off-limits to development. Until now, its shores were considered too important to birds, caribou and wildlife to allow oil rigs. Critics say the BLM is caving to companies pushing to cut costs. They point to the specifics of the new rules for the northwest section, such as the allowance for gravel roads and airstrips if they are "necessary to carry out exploration more economically" and drilling in rivers or streams if "it is determined that there is no feasible or prudent alternative." "Every single thing can be waived for economic reasons, which makes it all meaningless," said Eleanor Huffines of The Wilderness Society. Geology justifies the proposals, BLM's Bisson said. Beneath Teshekpuk Lake there may be as much as 2.2 billion barrels of oil, he said. It lies within the same geologic formation that produced most North Slope oil discoveries. A strict interpretation of existing rules, including mandatory buffers around streams, would make it difficult to extract some of the oil, he said. "We have more than sufficient protections to steer away from sensitive areas," Bisson said. "But we also have the ability to make an exception if there's no reasonable alternative. I think it's a mistake to go into a place and just absolutely say, "no exceptions'." Industry supporters like the proposed changes. Clinton-era leasing restrictions were too extreme, said Larry Houle, executive director of the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, an oil field service association. "There was a political agenda being pushed by the stipulations, and it was an anti-development agenda," he said. Houle, who served on a BLM advisory panel, cited some examples. One rule bars tundra travel unless there is 12 inches of frozen ground and six inches of snow cover. Another requires three-mile buffers for waterways. Instead of such prescriptive mandates, he said, rules should emphasize performance goals. Companies could abide by existing rules by using such techniques as directional drilling, but choose not to, said Anchorage environmental consultant Pamela Miller. "If they felt the government was going to hold them to the stipulations, they probably could figure out a way to do it. But why should they? It's going to cost them more money," Miller said. Inupiat Eskimos of the North Slope also are concerned. If the BLM decides to drop environmental protections, "I don't think that Nuiqsut or any other village will support development in NPR-A," said Thomas Napageak, an elder from Nuiqsut, the Inupiat village on the reserve's eastern border. story.news.yahoo.com

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507875)	12/13/2003 9:26:46 AM
From: Done, gone.	Respond to of 769667

Dollar Dips to Record Low Vs Euro on Snow By Manuela Badawy NEW YORK (Reuters) - The dollar reached a lifetime low against the euro on Friday after U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said the dollar's decline was "orderly," a comment dollar bears took as a green light to sell the currency, analysts said. "This is a deja vu of this spring when John Snow was asked about the dollar decline," said Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst at MG Financial Group in New York. "And just about when the dollar had taken a sharp drop, he said the decline had been 'orderly,' which accelerated the fall in the currency, and we are seeing some of that now." The euro reached a record high of $1.2306 , according to Reuters data, before drifting back to $1.2292, a gain of 0.68 percent on the day. Laidi said Snow's remarks left markets thinking that the government's strong-dollar policy is mere rhetoric and that the White House is in fact content to see further dollar losses. Snow noted on Bloomberg Television, "The dollar on a traded-weighted basis is still higher today than it has been for most of the last 25 years." Later, during the New York trading day, President Bush (news - web sites) called for a strong U.S. dollar and suggested a strengthening U.S. economy should lend support to its value. OVERALL SENTIMENT The dollar had weakened earlier following a report that showed a surprising drop in U.S. consumer sentiment, in contrast to generally upbeat recent U.S. economic data. The University of Michigan's preliminary reading of December consumer sentiment fell to 89.6 from November's final reading of 93.7. Economists had forecast a rise to 96.0. The dollar rallied earlier this week as investors sold euros to lock in profits on its 9-cent move higher against the greenback in the last five weeks. The dollar, already weak against the yen, remained down 0.32 percent to trade near 107.66 yen . After Japan's closely watched quarterly "tankan" survey showed big Japanese firms more confident about business conditions than at any time in the past six years, selling pressure increased on the greenback. However, fears of intervention are thought to have put a cap on the dollar's losses. Japan is concerned that a rising yen could harm the country's export-led recovery, making goods too expensive for foreigners. Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki reiterated on Friday that recent currency moves had been too fast. WIDER TRADE GAP At the start of U.S. trade, the dollar had trimmed modest losses after the October U.S. trade gap data came in near estimates, confounding investors who had expected worse and had sold dollars ahead of the report, only to buy them back again. In October the U.S. trade deficit widened to $41.77 billion versus an upward revision to $41.34 billion in September. Other data showed U.S. inflation on the producer level fell unexpectedly in November, a move that carries a mixed message for the dollar. November's producer price index (news - web sites) fell 0.3 percent versus expectations for a rise of 0.1 percent. Inflation on the wholesale level was up 0.8 percent in October. Excluding the food and energy sectors, prices fell 0.1 percent last month. Falling inflation benefits U.S. asset markets and is another reason why the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) can leave interest rates low for the foreseeable future. However, low U.S. interest rates versus higher rates among the dollar's peers means there is less incentive to purchase the dollar. The dollar fell to 1.2615 Swiss francs , a loss of 0.65 percent on the day. Earlier, Swiss National Bank chairman Jean-Pierre Roth called dollar weakness a problem but said that overall the forex situation was not bad. Elsewhere, sterling climbed to a fresh 11-year high $1.7509 , but dipped back to $1.7467, a gain of 0.18 percent. (Additional reporting by Daniel Bases) story.news.yahoo.com

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507875)	12/13/2003 9:59:58 AM
From: Done, gone.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Clear as Mud How the administration’s Mideast policy has become confused, murky and weak Dec. 8 - It is a curious thing to behold. An administration that started out with a strong, bold agenda is nearing its final year with a weak and timid foreign policy. Its team of policy heavyweights is sidelined in favor of an elder statesman from another era. It’s as if the president who declared he wanted to transform an entire region has been transformed himself. Weakness and timidity were not the qualities that George W. Bush had in mind when he stepped into the Oval Office--never mind when he devoted himself to fighting terrorism. But just look at the moribund state of diplomacy in the most emotional of all Middle Eastern disputes: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s not just the Israeli and Palestinian leadership that are deadlocked. The United States has deadlocked itself by clinging to a policy prescription that has little to do with the real world. George W. Bush became the first U.S. president to call explicitly for the creation of an independent and viable Palestine. He also was the first president to call for an end to Yasir Arafat’s leadership. Yet those gutsy statements were the start and end of his policy to resolve the conflict. What good is the president’s bold vision for the Palestinian people if he can’t bring them any closer to making it a reality? The missing link--the international Roadmap towards a Palestinian state--was the creation of other players (mostly the European Union and the United Nations), and was accepted only reluctantly by Washington. Now the administration holds on to the Roadmap like some Middle Eastern flotation device, ignoring the fact that it never trusted its directions in the first place. While the Roadmap sinks, the Bush administration is left making token gestures to both sides. To the Israelis, it opposes the construction of a fence by the symbolic, partial reduction of loan guarantees. To the Palestinians, it opposes terrorism by the endless repetition of stern words. For the world’s unrivalled superpower, this is not a powerful position. Consider the furor over the Geneva accord, the hypothetical "peace deal" negotiated by former Israeli and Palestinian officials, Yossi Beilin and Yasir Abed Rabbo. On the face of it, the Bush administration looked tough by standing up to Israeli protests and meeting with Beilin and Rabbo regardless. In reality, the dispute only underscored how the administration has now succeeded in alienating both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. Why did the administration want to meet with the Geneva negotiators? Because U.S. officials hoped the Geneva plan might breathe life into the roadmap. That’s not to say the administration endorsed the Geneva accord. Far from it, in fact. The administration opposes the Geneva plan because it doesn’t require an end to violence before anything else can happen. When Powell met with Beilin and Rabbo, his spokesman said he told them that only the Roadmap represented "the appropriate pathway" and that "there are no shortcuts along the way". Was Powell trying to push the Israelis to do more with the Roadmap? Not exactly. "I guess this has been portrayed as putting pressure on the Israelis, because that is the way Israel feels," says one senior State Department official. "But I don’t think that was the intent. I really don’t." Talk about a curious policy. The Roadmap is dead on the ground, but Washington refuses to endorse an alternative. It nonetheless annoys its key regional ally by expressing an interest in the alternative. Yet it insists that nothing has changed. When the Bush team was running for office in 2000, they used to disparage that kind of nonsense as a feckless foreign policy. Above all else, the Bushies have prided themselves on moral clarity in dealing with the rest of the world. No matter how moral they now feel, clarity is almost entirely missing from their Middle East policy. That sense of muddle was only deepened by the appointment of James A. Baker III, the former secretary of State and Bush family fixer, as the president’s envoy on the issue of Iraqi debt. According to the State Department, Baker’s work will be welcomed because it’s far too complex and time-consuming for Powell to resolve. It probably is. That’s why there’s a cabinet, including Treasury Secretary John Snow. In previous administrations, Treasury was considered important enough (and competent enough) to deal with international issues such as foreign debt. Along with the diplomats at State, and with a little help from the White House, Treasury dealt effectively with a series of major financial crises. Today Iraq’s biggest crisis is not financial, even if its debt is a large and unresolved problem. The lack of investment and jobs in Iraq has little do with its national debt, and everything to do with security and Saddam’s misrule. And for many other countries, the solution to Iraq’s debt mountain has nothing to do with the U.S. official tasked with climbing it. The solution is the creation of a new Iraqi government that can re-negotiate its debts with the Paris Club of creditors. "Never in the history of the Paris Club has it ever signed a rescheduling deal with an entity that wasn’t an independent and sovereign state," says one senior French official. Unless Baker is about to declare Iraq’s independence, there are only two explanations for his appointment. Either the president feels that Powell, Snow and the rest of his cabinet are incapable of dealing with Iraq’s debts. Or the president is giving Baker a far broader role in resolving Iraq’s future. Both explanations are deeply unsettling for his much-vaunted foreign policy team and for the rest of the world. When Baker travels to European and regional capitals, the world’s leaders will think that Baker--not Powell, Donald Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice--has the influence with the president to get things done in Iraq. Yet we, and they, can’t be sure of that. After all, in official terms, Baker is just talking about Iraq’s debts. That kind of confusion, duplication and disarray was not supposed to be the hallmark of the Bush administration. In fact the road to Baghdad was supposed to be just one stop on a journey leading to the end of terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nobody predicted it would also lead to the end of Bush’s once-clear foreign policy. © 2003 Newsweek, Inc. msnbc.msn.com

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507875)	12/13/2003 10:05:36 AM
From: Done, gone.	Respond to of 769667

Iraq Contracts Expose Washington's True Aims - Critics Emad Mekay The George W. Bush administration's decision to exclude countries that opposed the U.S.-led war on Iraq from multi-billion-dollar reconstruction deals contradicts its position both on free trade and its self-described mission in Iraq, Washington analysts say. WASHINGTON, Dec 12 (IPS) - The George W. Bush administration's decision to exclude countries that opposed the U.S.-led war on Iraq from multi-billion-dollar reconstruction deals contradicts its position both on free trade and its self-described mission in Iraq, analysts here say. U.S. allies like Canada, France and Germany, and its old foe Russia, will lose lucrative contracts because they opposed the U.S.-led war. The countries have objected, especially since the United States is simultaneously asking them to forgive Iraq's enormous foreign debts. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder challenged the move Thursday, saying "international law must apply here". Washington defended the policy, first revealed in a memo by Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, as "appropriate and reasonable" since the U.S. is committing troops and taxpayers' money. The directive signed by Wolfowitz states that "it is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, Coalition partners and force contributing nations". The restrictions apply to 18.6 billion dollars in reconstruction contracts. However, some analysts here say the move raises doubts about whether the reconstruction of Iraq is the administration's main goal at all. "Wolfowitz's decree forces us all to ask the question again: are these reconstruction contracts for the benefit of Iraq, or are they political rewards, handed out to 'friends'?" said Rania Masri of the U.S.-based Institute for Southern Studies. Masri said the decision shows that "transforming the Iraqi economy for foreign ownership and foreign plunder is the main goal". Masri referred to the quick move to privatise the Iraqi economy. Weeks into the occupation, while the Iraqi infrastructure was still in ruins, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, removed all tariffs and trade restrictions. This devastated the Iraqi textile and poultry industries, she said. Bremer has also imposed a 15 percent flat tax, and allowed 100 percent foreign ownership of almost all Iraqi industries, as well as the resulting removal of profits from the country. Other experts say this is not what the United States, as the occupying power, should be doing. "The reconstruction of Iraq should be for the benefit of Iraqis, not a reward for any corporations," said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies. "Reconstruction funds from the U.S. should be used to build up the devastated Iraqi economy -- meaning that Iraqi firms and workers should be hired to rebuild the country, not U.S. or international firms." William Hartung of the World Policy Institute said the decision could hurt both Iraqis and U.S. taxpayers. "Keeping qualified French, German, Canadian and Russian firms out of the bidding on the next round of reconstruction contracts, worth 18.6 billion dollars, will make it that much harder to eliminate rampant price gouging by companies like Halliburton," he said. On Friday, senior defence officials said a Pentagon audit found that Vice Pres. Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, one of the administration's favoured corporate partners in Iraq, may have overcharged the U.S. Army by 1.09 dollars per gallon on a total of nearly 57 million gallons of gasoline that were delivered to Iraqi citizens under a no-bid contract. The economic repercussions of the decision extend to other areas, analysts say. By excluding countries that have prior experience constructing Iraqi factories, electrical grids, hospitals and water pumping stations, Washington will likely end up rebuilding those facilities rather than simply repairing them -- a much more expensive endeavour. The decision also strongly undermines U.S. rhetoric on free trade, according to Gayle Smith of the Washington-based Centre for American Progress. By ensuring that the Iraqi market is only accessible to Coalition members, the United States is restricting the space for Iraq's future trade ties, she said. The White House decision has legitimised political interference in government procurement operations, setting the stage for future contracts to be subject to the whims of individual government agencies, Smith said. "It has upended trade relations by using its status as occupying authority to monopolise a single market," she said. "And it has certainly lent credence to the view held by some that one of its aims is to secure the spoils of victory." The exclusion policy even drew fire from some of the staunchest backers of the administration. Neo-conservative analysts William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote in the right-wing Weekly Standard that the policy was "heavy-handed", "stupid" and "counter-productive". One thing that almost all analysts agree on is that the decision will certainly hinder attempts to increase international involvement in Iraq. "The Bush administration has poured another bucket of cold water on efforts to internationalise the stabilisation of Iraq," Smith said. "The Pentagon has increased the cost to Americans, weakened the traditional alliances America needs to defeat terrorism, and undermined Iraq's long-term future." ipsnews.net

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507875)	12/13/2003 10:35:29 AM
From: Done, gone.	Respond to of 769667

US Senators demand Guantanamo resolution By North America correspondent Jill Colgan Three US Senators have written to Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld demanding that he formally charge the detainees as war criminals or return them to their own countries to face justice. The letter follows a visit by the trio to the maximum security prison this week. The letter was sent by Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell. Both Senators McCain and Graham have had lengthy military careers. Senator McCain is a war hero who was imprisoned by the Vietnamese for five years, much of it in solitary confinement. The letter congratulates the military for the smooth running of the prison at Guantanamo but expresses serious concerns at the ongoing detention of the prisoners without charges. The Senators have demanded to know when Mr Rumsfeld will decide the fate of all the detainees and when military trials will start. Noting some of the men have been held for two years, the letter says it is time to make a decision on how the US will move forward. abc.net.au

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507875)	12/13/2003 10:48:42 AM
From: Done, gone.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Tax Cuts and Long-Term Debt by Christian Weller Published by Center for American Progress Don’t look too close now, but the administration is doing try to sell you the London Bridge of economic policy. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal this week, Joshua Bolten, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, essentially claimed that there won’t be any long-term deficits as a result of the two whopping tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration. The issue is not that the tax cuts increased the deficits in the short-term. Almost everybody agreed that the economy needed a boost from the government. Growth was too slow after the recession ended in November 2001 to generate sufficient jobs to lower the unemployment rate. This goal of the economic stimulus could have been reached more efficiently. That is, the same economic effect could have been reached with a lot less money, or the same amount of government money could have created substantially faster growth. In essence, the large tax cuts were inefficient because they were ill designed and because they contributed to long-term structural deficits. Rather than address the problem of long-term structural deficits, Mr. Bolten simply wants to make them disappear. Mr. Bolten asserts that budget deficits over the coming 10 years will decline and remain manageable. This may sound good, if you are willing to ignore economic evidence and political realities. Because there is little we can do about past budget deficits, the biggest concern are future deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government will run a deficit in its on-budget operations of close to $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Including Social Security’s surplus lowers the total deficit to $1.4 trillion. If unrealistic assumptions are eliminated, Bill Gale and Peter Orszag from Brookings estimate that the unified budget deficit increases to $4.6 trillion and even to $7.7 trillion if Social Security’s surpluses are excluded. These unrealistic assumptions include the assertion that the tax cuts won’t be permanent or that the federal government will do nothing to change the alternative minimum tax that will affect a growing number of tax payers. Even without these changes, most observers familiar with the budget outlook, including the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, agree that deficits will become even larger after 2013. These long-term budget deficits, though, have real economic consequences. Economic evidence shows that they reduce national savings. However, if savings decline, there is either less investment or more borrowing from abroad. Either way, domestic income will decline and with it, living standards. They also have the undesirable effect of restricting the government’s ability to expand spending for necessary programs and for an economic stimulus if another recession occurs in the coming decades. Deficits have already constrained the government’s ability to increase spending on desirable programs, such as Head Start. As Mr. Bolten points out himself, spending increases are really only occurring for defense and national security. While national security is certainly an important goal for the federal government, there are other important functions to be filled. The administration’s irresponsible tax cuts have effectively restricted the government’s ability to raise spending for other important functions, which may in fact be the tax cuts’ desired side effect. As for future recessions, the recent experience also holds important lessons. The government’s willingness to incur deficits kept the economy from sliding deeper into the recession. However, similar effects could have been accomplished with lower deficits in recent years and without building up large deficits in the future. Much of the tax cut benefits accumulated to high income earners, who tend to be more inclined to save money than to spend it, exactly the opposite of what the economy needs in a recession. A temporary spending increase, e.g. for higher unemployment benefits, would have been more effective. It would have disproportionately gone to low income earners who are more likely to spend than to save the money, and it would have been limited to the period of high unemployment, the recession. Thus, reducing long-term structural deficits will give the government the ability to do what it needs to do: run a variety of programs to ensure everybody will have a fair chance and to step in to stabilize the economy when the going gets tough. Policymakers can walk and chew gum at the same time. The trick, though, is not to bite your tongue. You can have deficits, especially in a recession, and still be fiscally responsible. The challenge is to not mortgage future economic growth to do this. Long-term structural deficits, as opposed to short-term cyclical ones, are harmful since they can reduce long-term growth in living standards. They also restrict the ability of future governments to spend money on socially necessary programs or to stabilize the economy with fiscal stimuli if another recession occurs. That is exactly what this administration has done. And now, it is trying to tell you that biting your tongue, while walking and chewing gum, doesn’t hurt. Dr. Christian Weller is a senior economist at the Center for American Progress. progressivetrail.org

To: Done, gone. who wrote (507875)	12/13/2003 11:01:36 AM
From: Done, gone.	Read Replies (17) \| Respond to of 769667

Cnservatives Against Bush conservativesagainstbush.com About Us Conservatives Against Bush was founded to propound the conservative principles that this administration has forsaken. This President has expanded the welfare state, saddled future generations with debt, eroded some of our basic freedoms, and waged a spurious war in Iraq that in the end did not make the U.S. any safer. We seek to reenergize conservatives, so they will press for change in this administration. Conservatives Against Bush on the issues: Bush's fiscal irresponsibility conservativesagainstbush.com Bush's protectionism conservativesagainstbush.com The war on drugs conservativesagainstbush.com The aftermath of the Iraq war conservativesagainstbush.com Wolfowitz, the neo-cons, and imperialism conservativesagainstbush.com The Ashcroftonian assault on liberty conservativesagainstbush.com The Patriot Act conservativesagainstbush.com Bush and affirmative action conservativesagainstbush.com