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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nextrade! who wrote (26773)	1/30/2005 8:09:46 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

I think it's a shame we spend so much on weapons anyway. Why did we develop the F-22? No other country is building any fighter that can compete with our LAST generation of fighters. Our defense industries end up competing with themselves. Why are we building ANY big cold war weapon systems now?

To: nextrade! who wrote (26773)	1/31/2005 7:45:08 AM
From: nextrade!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Congressional Committee Proposes Severe Cuts in Easement Deductions Advocates Alert: Congressional Committee Proposes Severe Cuts in Easement Deductions lta.org Date: January 28, 2005 Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) of the Congress recommended severe limits to the deductions landowners can take for donating a conservation easement. In short, the committee -- a body looked to by the Congress for expert advice on tax matters -- proposed that deductions for a conservation easement be limited to no more than 33% of the easement's appraised value , and that no deduction be allowed for an easement on a property used by the taxpayer as their personal residence. The Washington Post covered the recommendations in an article in today's paper (see washingtonpost.com. The Joint Committee's rationale: cases of abuse of deductions for historic facade and conservation easements, and how difficult it is for the Internal Revenue Service to police easement appraisals. While the Post article focuses on the easement recommendations, the 430 page JCT report, "Options to Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax Expenditures", includes 67 other recommendations for changes to all parts of the tax code. The full report is at: house.gov (PDF; 1.3MB). The report has some other equally troubling recommendations, including a recommendation that deductions for donations of property -- including donations and bargain sales of real estate -- be limited to the taxpayer's basis in the property, rather than its market value. The Joint Committee's work is a report, and only that. It is not legislation. But it is a gun pointed right at the deductibility of conservation donations. If your Senators and Representatives don't know how important these donations are to you and your community, they could well turn to this report's recommendations as a good way to reduce the deficit or fund some other priority. We all know how important the deductibility of land and easement donations has been to the success and growth of land trusts. But we can't take the status quo for granted. The tax benefits for conservation are at dire risk if policymakers believe that they are being abused. LTA is developing a plan and a strong coalition to stop these proposals from becoming law, but our success will depend on land trusts demonstrating that they are capable of self-regulation. If tax deductions are important for your work, we need your help to: Commit to implementing and demonstrating compliance with Land Trust Standards and Practices; Help LTA consider what other forms of self-regulation would be appropriate for land trusts; Involve your Senators and Representatives in the work of your land trust so that they know the importance of what we are doing; and, Send a message to your Senators and Representatives about the Joint Committee proposal. A draft letter is available. Rand Wentworth President Land Trust Alliance 1331 H St NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20005 www.lta.org

To: nextrade! who wrote (26773)	1/31/2005 8:40:55 PM
From: nextrade!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Base cuts expected to hit region hard pressherald.mainetoday.com They were shuttered one by one after the Iron Curtain fell: military installations throughout New England once important to the nation's defense against a Soviet threat but deemed obsolete when the Cold War ended. It's a legacy that hangs over the region still as the Pentagon prepares for another round of base cuts, which some military analysts expect to hit New England hard despite efforts to adapt installations to the war on terror and homeland defense. "The end of the Cold War - and the shift of concern to terrorism - is drawing the military away from New England," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank. "There are just so many forces that are converging to hurt the region." New England already has lost several major installations, including Maine's Loring Air Force Base, seacoast New Hampshire's Pease Air Force Base and Massachusetts' Fort Devens. And more than 100 lesser-known bases have been closed since the first round of base closures more than a decade ago, according to the Massachusetts Defense Technology Initiative, which raises money to lobby on behalf of the region's bases and save them from the latest round of closures. Officials won't specify how many of about 400 domestic bases are targeted this year - nor if any in New England are singled out - but they say the military has 24 percent more capacity than needed, and there are plenty of places to trim. Under review in New England are two Army facilities: the Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass., and the Cold Regions Research Lab in Hanover, N.H.; and three Air Force facilities in Massachusetts: Hanscom Air Force Base, Westover Air Reserve Base and Cape Cod's Otis Air National Guard Base. There also are Navy facilities: the Brunswick Naval Air Station and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine; the New London Submarine Base in Groton, Conn.; and the Navy War College and Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, R.I. There also are dozens of other smaller facilities. Recommendations for closings are due May 16 to a nine-member Base Realignment and Closure - or BRAC - commission. Defense leaders say the closures, the first since 1995, could save billions of dollars from an already-bulging defense budget. "Do we realize that we're in the fight of our life? Absolutely. We know there will be a substantial reduction," said Jim Brett, president of the New England Council in Boston, a group that has lobbied on behalf of the region's bases. Some analysts say a dense population and a harsh climate that restrict how and where military units can train hurt bases in New England. They also point to aging bases with outdated missions as being vulnerable. Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said these same factors apply to other parts of the country and don't paint New England as particularly doomed. Yet even beyond terrorism, military concerns such as threats from China and Iran offer little security for New England bases, he says. "The Iran scenario works more to the advantage of the Pacific-based submarine yards. And that could leave New England more vulnerable," O'Hanlon said. Bases around the country have spent the last year touting their abilities in hopes of being considered essential to homeland defense. Many have redefined their core missions and proposed expansions to include more than one military branch. In Massachusetts, Hanscom is considering adding 1.2 million square feet of high-tech research space, and Maine officials in Brunswick have compiled documents stressing the base's capabilities, which could include the construction of a proposed $42 million regional center to train National Guard and reserve soldiers. Pentagon leaders say the process is removed from politics, but community commissions and congressional delegations have spent months lobbying. In Connecticut, lawmakers set aside $350,000 to argue the merits of the Groton submarine base amid worries the Navy could slash its submarine fleet from about 55 to 37. "We really have to be certain that all of the arguments in favor of the installations are not overlooked. You don't want to assume the Defense Department will be aware of all factors," said U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, thinks BRAC should be delayed until the Pentagon fully assesses its needs in the war on terrorism. "Until we know what our needs are, it seems to me to be foolhardy," she said. Jay Korman with DFI International, a Washington-based defense consulting firm, says New England has been hurt by past base closings but there's no reason to think that makes the region any less vulnerable in the next round of closings. "If you're a community that is hosting a base with a question mark on it, you have to be concerned," he said. "You won't get much sympathy for being hit hard before."