The Democratic sniping against Dino Rossi's transportation plan has been heavy on "how is he going to pay for that!" outrage. Presumably, his education and overall budget plans will receive similar despondent reaction from the establishment status quo, resistant to discussing new ways of approaching problems.
That's fair. They have to play the hand their they're dealt, raise doubts about the evil opponent's plans, deflect the missing record of accomplishments of recent years, etc.
But what will the response be to the question of how Christine Gregoire proposes to close the $2.4 billion projected deficit now looming after her first term?
How will a Governor who didn't have the political courage to follow her Democratic predecessor's Priorities of Government process to restrain state spending find the heart to wield a fiscal carving knife now? The state budget ballooned 33% since she took office. What's the plan to bring state spending back down to earth, and quickly?
The intellectually correct answer, especially given the proclivities of the Democratic Legislature, is a robust hike in taxes. The actual answers on the campaign trail may be more Clintonian.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 23, 2008 10:20 PM | Email ThisDon't you mean:
"They have to play the hand they're dealt"
Posted by: Grammer Master on April 23, 2008 10:25 PMYes, for the Light Rail, money grew on trees. $50 Billion or more, no problem, just vote for Prop 1 and they'll work out the details.
But for Rossi's more balanced plan, no that might cost some money, and they've got to look things over thoroughly, yada, yada.
Democrats in Olympia are busy trying to figure out how to ban plastic bags, they just don't have the intellecual capacity left to focus on real WA problems.
Yes; that's a BIG problem for the (D)s. But I suggest that a much bigger and much harder to ''fudge'' with typical (D) smoke-screens problem is the projected FIVE-PLUS billion projected deficit for the FOLLOWING biennium. Balancing THAT budget will require a fundamental change in ''business as usual''. I doubt that even the (D) controlled Legislature will have the nerve to try and raise taxes THAT much; that would be outside the tolerance envelope; and would risk an economic crises in WA.
Posted by: Methow Ken on April 24, 2008 12:11 AMYou are the party of inherited wealth, and of profit, property, and privilege over people, and you can no more free yourselves of "special interests," meaning the financial and industrial elites and their lackwit foot soldiers, than a human being can function without a heart and lungs.
Every time you rightards try to paint liberals as "elites," I just laugh, and then I laugh some more. We might have a few millionaires, but you have the billionaires.
As for the state deficit, we live in the state with the single most regressive tax system in the country, and in Gregoire's second term, and maybe in her third, with an even larger Democratic majority in the Legislature, we're going to close those loopholes and raise the money we need to -- GET THINGS DONE! Think of that concept!
Posted by: ivan on April 24, 2008 06:44 AMBillionaire... You mean Bill Gates. Yeah he's a REP alright.
Kennedy
Boxer
Finstien
Heck even Clinton.
Nice try. HAHAHA
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 24, 2008 08:03 AMMore fun ok. Congress most richest
Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 2 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $168,651,649 3 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 4 Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $135,862,098 5 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023
I'd like to hear what each intends to do.
Posted by: BA on April 24, 2008 08:24 AMHere's a few more. Notice who the top richest are. (-:
Senate millionaires
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015
Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052
Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011
Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037
Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007
Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037
James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026
John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043
John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas: $1,513,046
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013
Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999
Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024
*These figures are base estimates provided by senators on their financial disclosure forms.
Then what the heck are Bill Gates, Paul Allen, William Buffet, and George Soros? Chopped liver?
By the way, you are aware that the fundraiser where Obama made those famous "bitter" remarks was held in uber-liberal San Fransisco's so called "Billionaire's Row", right?
Posted by: Mike H on April 24, 2008 09:30 AMWhat taxes are you going to raise to balance the GF-S bow wave coming?
What taxes are you going to raise to solve the region's transportation problems?
Stop deflecting.
You criticize Rossi with 'where's the money going to come from'. Well, back at ya.
Where's the money going to come from?
What taxes are you going to raise to pay for it all?
What specific 'loopholes' are you going to 'close' to balance the coming bow wave?
What specific 'loopholes' are you going to 'close' to pay for transportation?
Specifics.
Posted by: jimg on April 24, 2008 09:49 AMI have to laugh. For years the Dem's have been saying that fuel taxes should be much higher to slow down our useage. Well were here and now their mad about that?
Have you noticed that the Dem's are not saying zip about the amount of taxes the gov is getting from fuel.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 24, 2008 09:51 AMWe don't know, I don't see the Times ponying up $2300 to sit with Dinner w/ Bush. I doubt anyone yucking it up with him would tell either.
Nice retort, but we can't prove it either way. Bitter gate is like McCain's 100 years in Iraq, which was similarly taken out of context.
Meanwhile while we argue about who said what, Iraq is still in trouble, Gas is going to hit $4/gal this summer, credit market is in trouble, we are in a mild recession, food prices are rising, and Wal-Mart/Costco are rationing rice.
Also, the new GI-Bill is coming up to vote soon, do you support it Army M/V?
Please send me a check for all of your extra wealth. I'd love to help prop up the myth that conservatives are the party of the rich and that everything we do is some kinf of special interest voodoo. Your payment will add to the monthly Big Oil kickbacks I get for pointing out the real science behind the Solar Minimum.
Thanks.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 24, 2008 10:11 AMActually that is the Democrats. The Democrats are the party of the elite/ultra rich, the trust fund do nothings, parasitic middle class (govt. workers, union idiots), and the parasitic poor. The GOP is the party of self achievers and the middle class. Don't believe me? Take a close look at an election map. The biggest leftists counties are usually the richest counties. San Juan in Washington, Blaine in Idaho, Teton in Wyoming, etc.
The Democrats are all about control and power while the GOP is the more freedom friendly party. The Democrats want to keep the rich and elite powerful by keeping other folks from getting rich too. Democrats don't want the average Joe to get rich. The more rich people, the less power and control the Democrat's ultra rich base has. That is why they are for high income taxes.
Posted by: AP on April 24, 2008 10:15 AM
Pot:Kettle
Barack Obama still takes in oil money
The Illinois Democrat received $46,000 in donations from executives and workers last month. In a campaign ad, he said he took no money from oil companies.
Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 24, 2008 10:19 AM
Uh huh, how does that apply to the current President who was an ultra-rich trust fund/legacy admission good ol' New England elitist who's daddy got him a deferment from 'Nam?
Wake up cato, were talking McCain and his wife not Bush. Plus again your statement is lame. If the MSN wanted to use it against him they would.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
100years. Gezzz even you can't get that right.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gas is 4 bucks because we have drilled where??? I see they are finding oil all over the place but don't look here. Don't forget "which I have said so many times" The dem party ( your party) wanted fuel cost this high. So your mad about what??
++++++++++++++++
Any GI bill that helps our fighting men & women is just fine with me. People like you who have never been where we have.
PS on rice... who cares. It uses a ton of water to grow. It's a dumb crop, except in areas that have large rain fall. (not calif)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 24, 2008 10:30 AMI recommend Aleve for your jerking knee.
Posted by Cato at April 24, 2008 10:20 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Care to prove that, or your just following the Dan Blather/dem fools.
It's a technicality Ragnar since companies usually don't donate money (unless of course your AT&T). They tend to donate as PAC's, and Obama supposedly doesn't take money from PAC's therefore he doesn't take money from the companies themselves.
Now are you suggesting the Obama should return unsolicited donations from people who work in the oil industry even if they support him?
Got to have that bio-fuel that causes food problems.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 24, 2008 10:38 AM
Lie of ommision or lie of commision - both lies.
Evidently that wild bastion of conservatism {/snicker} The LA Times agrees.
"From our perspective, if there is a distinction between oil company PACs and lobbyists, and their executives, it is a mighty fine line," said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. "They all represent the same interest -- oil."Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 24, 2008 10:39 AM
Follow Ron Sims advice.
Shut down light rail and sell off the assets now.
Posted by: John Bailo on April 24, 2008 11:08 AMI support it, but there seems to be resistance in the Pentagon and the White House. I've never claimed to have served.
Yup:
http://www.nndb.com/event/806/000140386/
McCain served and spent a good number of years being beaten & tortured for that choice.
Bush was born in New Have, CT....his Daddy was an oil man:
"After graduating from Yale, Bush and his young family headed for Texas, determined to make their fortune in the oil business. In 1951, Bush started Bush-Overby Oil Development Company, and in 1954, he created Zapata Offshore Company, which designed and built offshore drilling platforms." - Source
Depends, PAC's usually want something in return, they're based around issues...unsolicited donations are the individuals choice.
I don't think it's a lie, the newspaper is basing it's story on a technical distinction. Do you feel that Microsoft supports Hillary Clinton because a number of top execs have contributed the maximum? By your reasoning Mobil backs the GOP and the CIA is a big supporter of the Dem's. =P
Well they got it..
Just taking issue with AP's comment since his comment seems to leave out our beloved Commander in Chief from the "elite/ultra rich, the trust fund do nothings" crowd.
True, and the GOP wanted us to use less of it so we can end the funding for Middle East terrorists. Both sides make compelling arguments for using less oil. =)
Meanwhile Canada pays much more for gas (petrol) than we do and they still drive everywhere.
Seems like your list is a bit narrow. Are we just counting Senators or the multi-millionaire CEO's who donate to them?
"McCain has an equal fortune to the Kerry's but it's all hidden under Cindy's name. It's all about how well you disguise your tax returns. =)"
Cindy McCain's net worth is estimated at $100 million or so.
Teresa Heinz-Kerry's net worth is estimated at $500 million or so. I've even seen figures up to a billion, but those are unsubstantiated.
Do you have any proof of your statement to offer, or are you merely off by a factor of 5x, as per the norm? What's a few hundred million dollars to the party of the rich and inherited wealth, right??
Ivan,
"You are the party of inherited wealth, and of profit, property, and privilege over people"
Obviously your ridiculous, ignorant, and prejudiced statement has been debunked by looking at the accumulated wealth of the members of the House and Senate. One look at those lists and you see the very most wealthy in Congress are all Democrats.
But I don't presume to be able to change your narrow and little mind. I only have a few questions.
If Republicans ARE truly the party of inherited wealth, they why don't you Democrats reform the tax system and tax wealth? Why do we tax earnings, from working families, rather than wealth?
The answer is - Democrats don't want to tax wealth, because they're all wealthy in Congress. I'm not wealthy, and (most likely) neither are you. Wouldn't you rather tax wealth than income, or at least to a greater extent? I would. I'd rather tax Bill Gates' billions than my tens of thousands. Wouldn't you? But the Dems in Congress would NEVER allow that to happen, which illustrates that they're just as out-of-touch with the common man as you presume the Republicans to be.
Posted by: Larry on April 24, 2008 12:23 PMIt started with David #8. then ivan went nuts about the rich.
Maybe you should start from there.
I still laught though. The left hates the rich, who are the ones that make this nation and every other nation run. But if the left has money.... O-that's ok. Only the right with money is bad.
Lenin/Stailn best friends. (left)
By the way Cato. The reps wants us to drill.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 24, 2008 12:23 PMThat's "estimated", we'd need to see her returns to know how much money there actually is. I believe these sort of claims revolve around facts and not guesses. =)
Democrats don't want to tax wealth, because they're all wealthy in Congress.
That's an odd statement, especially since the Dem's are talking about increasing the tax on the wealthy by rolling back the tax cuts. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Sr. seem to feel they don't pay enough. I seem to recall that Mr. Buffer's secretary pays a higher percentage of her income than he does.
By the way Cato. The reps wants us to drill.
Actually they don't, they just say they do.
With 70% of the Oil PAC donations coming their way, I'm sure they'll jump through all sorts of hoops for that $$ even if they don't really mean it. =)
I don't recall saying there was anything wrong with it.
When I pay taxes, I get lefties in the education biz, polluting the minds of youth and telling me I can't pull my kids out of a program unless I view it myself.
I don't know what program your talking about. So I cannot comment.
At least the oil companies won't sieze my house if I don't buy their oil.
Cute, but you seem to be comparing apples & oranges.
Paying for gas helps your car to get you want to go, your taxes fund the road that allows you to get to where you want to go. =)
I'm not everybody and people here love to correct me in rather blunt language if I happen to be wrong. So why don't you just tell us straight out instead of calling it "a program".
one gets it's revenue by selling something of value, the other gets it's revenue by forcibly siezing it.
What product would you like the US Govt. to sell to you? Now if you want to go live in your own little libertarian fantasy land be my guest.
You should have talked The Free State Project into relocating to Wyoming or Montana where large numbers of people actually make a real difference, instead the FSP decided to relocate to New Hampshire which is full of Democrats. Silly silly libertarians.
Al Bore comes to mind... yeah I'm tried of de-bating with Cato. You answer, he switches.
PS Cato I was talking Congress not one FL gov. Gezzz your really dense most of the time.
Let gas reach 5 or 6 bucks and just maybe the American people will push our elected ones to get on the stick.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 24, 2008 01:13 PMVery true Cato...sometimes even the 'bigoted' ones.
Posted by: Duffman on April 24, 2008 01:15 PMI thought you believed in Free Market principles...should we not be rewarding these guys by lowering the safety standards on cars so these guys can produce more 100mpg vehicles?
Lucky for you Brazil may save the day and we won't have to do any serious invest in alternative fuel technologies.
How about we eliminate GOP funded programs that have been proven not to work?
Cato I was talking Congress not one FL gov
Congress voted to open the drilling, the TWO GOP Gov's with the most to gain (Bush, Schwarzenegger) said No. I guess that's what states rights are for. =P
EU pays over 6 and they still fill the streets with cars.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 24, 2008 01:53 PMAMERICA will save us, if some would get the hell out of the way. Add those billions of gallons to ANWR and we can thumb our nose at ALL imports for 30-60 years....PLUS the jobs that would be created JUST in ANWR.
I wonder how many of those gallons China would be glad to buy?
Of course without new refineries, it's a moot point.
As far as non-transportation fuel... FRANCE is kicking our ass.
France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this. FRANCE!
But the short-sighted party of unintended consequences prefers to thwart progress - while the great Gaia and mommy-earth laugh.
Well sure, the biggest industry in Florida and California is tourism, not oil. They are protecting the interests of their people.
However, no one lives in ANWR except some caribou, who don't seem to mind the pipelines. In fact, they congregate near them for warmth. And, the people and government of Alaska overwhelmingly support drilling in ANWR. So much for states rights.
And there's only one party to blame for not drilling in ANWR.
As for the actual topic of this post, I really hope they keep challenging Rossi's transportation plan. It will only highlight the massive failure of leadership on transportation over the last 3.5 years.
Posted by: Palouse on April 24, 2008 03:54 PMChecked back to see if any of those critical of Rossi's plan have any solutions from their side of the aisle.
And what do we read?
No suggestions. No solutions. Just more deflection.
Shocked.
Posted by: jimg on April 24, 2008 04:07 PMActually people do live there, just not as many as CA/FL. How do you know the Caribou don't mind, I don't speak Caribou, do you?
And, the people and government of Alaska overwhelmingly support drilling in ANWR.
Well given the recent allegations of bribery by politicians maybe we should rethink a big land giveaway to private companies so they can reap in massive profits. The amount of oil produced would not ease the current crisis all that much, especially if there's nowhere to refine it.
And there's only one party to blame for not drilling in ANWR.
True, god forbid the Democrat Party for not wanting to give anyway pristine wilderness in a wildlife reserve just so some oil companies can reap even more profits. Should save it for 2012 when oil prices are up around $240/barrel. Sounds a lot like having taxpayers give away public land to build a stadium so that overly whiny millionaires can run around hitting/kicking/throwing a ball for 1/3 of a year.
I really hope they keep challenging Rossi's transportation plan.
Me too, his magic funding hat doesn't appear to be working as well as he claimed.
BECAUSE, the same argument was made regarding the Alaskan pipeline...then a funny thing happened... the elk and caribou cozied up to it for the warmth...and MULTIPLIED.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section003_group001/home
Population dynamics: There are approximately 950,000 wild caribou in Alaska (including some herds that are shared by Alaska and Canada's Yukon Territory). Caribou are somewhat cyclic in number, but the timing of declines and increases, and the size to which herds grow is not very predictable. Although over hunting caused some herds to remain low in the past, today, varying weather patterns (climate), overpopulation, predation by wolves and grizzly bears, and disease outbreaks determine whether most herds increase or decrease.
In the 1970s people were concerned about the effect of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, expanding oil development, and increased disturbance from use of aircraft and snowmobiles on caribou. Although there was some displacement of caribou calving in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska. Pipelines and most other developments are built to allow for caribou movements, and caribou have shown us that they can adapt to the presence of people and machines. As human activities expand in Alaska, the great challenge for caribou management is for man to consider the needs of our caribou herds and ensure that they remain a visible, healthy part of our landscape.
So you want to upset the careful balance that god has created between predator and prey for a single pipeline that will barley make a dent in the human made energy crisis? Geez Ragnar, what kind of Catholic purposely goes out and destroys god's order of things?
Or perhaps he's just expecting the great minds of the caribou to decide to behave differently this time around?
6 million cars for 60+ years... that's the capability of the oil under the Dakota's.... ANWR has about 30 years worth... I hardly call that something that will only "barley make a dent in the human made energy crisis".
Well! I thought the crisis of the day was rice... barley too, huh? No more microbrews!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 24, 2008 05:58 PMAlmost enough said! Study after study, millions upon millions, and do nothing.
But this on really really takes the cake:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004369904_tolls24m.html
And the Democraps all think it is a great plan!
Except any of them that actually read it, and understand the massive costs to each household in this state.
Ken Schram and John Carlson hate it. That should tell you something, but the Queen Gregoire and her tax happy clan all love it! and it will cost you plenty!
Truckers, even Union Truckers, and everyone else t
Almost enough said! Study after study, millions upon millions, and do nothing.
But this on really really takes the cake:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004369904_tolls24m.html
And the Democraps all think it is a great plan!
Except any of them that actually read it, and understand the massive costs to each household in this state.
Ken Schram and John Carlson hate it. That should tell you something, but the Queen Gregoire and her tax happy clan all love it! and it will cost you plenty!
Truckers, even Union Truckers, and everyone else t
hen he also needs to attack back at Gregoire for doing nothing and cite specifics. If he does these, he will have a decent chance of winning - face it he and the Republicans need to play like they are 2 touchdowns down with one quarter left to play. Anything less will translate into no change in November and 4 more years of hell...
Posted by: KS on April 24, 2008 09:41 PMThen he also needs to attack back at Gregoire for doing nothing and cite specifics. If he does these, he will have a decent chance of winning - face it he and the Republicans need to play like they are 2 touchdowns down with one quarter left to play. Anything less will translate into no change in November and 4 more years of hell...
Posted by: KS on April 24, 2008 09:41 PMHave said that I am amazed by the amount of taxes, regulationsand restictions a Washington business must endure in Washington. This state has long passed the tipping point and is no longer comptetitive with other states and few countries. Many businesses have moved out. Few business have filled the vacuum. For example Rolls manufactures jet engines installed on planes built in Washington. Rolls determined it was more advantageoius to manufacture the engines in SC the Washington in spite of the higher costs of shipping and the longer pipe line.
Years ago a major printer manufacturer abandoned plans to open a manufacturing plant in Snohomish county after the land was purchased and property improvements made. 3,000 jobs were lost.
Olympia Beer closed down in Olmpia because of regulation and restictions imposed by the government.
Today the Snohomish County Council (Democrats) denied a home development stating that they want to control the amount of miles people drive. Of course this will raise the price of existing homes. And of course the same Democratics that denied the development will lament that homes are too expensive and their is a need for new homes for the poor.
Examples of government interfernce could fill volumes and the volumes could fill libraries. One last examples is our tax code. One of the most complicated, volumous set of laws and regulations ever contrived by government. A code so complicated that the lawmakers have to turn to professional CPA to interpret it to dutifully submit the paper piles at tax time.
I challenge the usually liberal, socialist thinking to explain their vision of success.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 25, 2008 08:21 AMHaving said that I am amazed by the amount of taxes, regulations and restrictions a Washington business endures in Washington. This state has long passed the tipping point and is no longer competitive with many other states and few countries. Many businesses have moved out. Few business have filled the vacuum. For example Rolls manufactures jet engines installed on planes built in Washington. Rolls determined it was more advantageous to manufacture the engines in SC then Washington in spite of the higher costs of shipping and the longer pipe line.
Years ago a major printer manufacturer abandoned plans to open a manufacturing plant in Snohomish county after the land was purchased and property improvements made. 3,000 jobs were lost.
Olympia Beer closed down in Olympia because of regulation and restrictions imposed by the government.
Today the Snohomish County Council (Democrats) denied a home development stating that they want to control the amount of miles people drive.
Of course this action will raise the price of existing homes. And of course the same Democrats that denied the development will lament that homes are too expensive and there is need for new homes for the poor.
Examples of government interference could fill volumes and the volumes could fill libraries. One last examples is our tax code. One of the most complicated, voluminous set of laws and regulations ever contrived by government. 17,000,000 words. A code so complicated that lawmakers and citizens have to turn to professional CPAs to interpret it to dutifully submit the paper piles at tax time.
I challenge the usually liberal, socialist thinking to explain their visions of success.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 25, 2008 08:31 AMI know that, they want the jobs. It's just that my argument sounded better when I left that little factoid out.
ANWR has about 30 years worth... I hardly call that something that will only "barley make a dent in the human made energy crisis".
That's great, but oil usually needs to be refined in order to be put into a usable form. Besides I thought we were trying to bring about the use of alternative fuel sources, this would only seem to delay the eventual day when the oil runs out.
Well! I thought the crisis of the day was rice... barley too, huh? No more microbrews!
Microbrews will be around, they will just cost more like everything else. Luckily there's no shortage on grapes.
Cato, I'd bet you couldn't find ANWR on a map.
You probably couldn't find Alaska for that matter.
I think your unhappiness comes from the fact that
you haven't accomplished much in your life.
Such compassion here...I love how tolerant conservatives are and how they claim to know me if I happen to disagree with them. =P
True, but from this article it sounds more like a consolidation effort on the point of Miller. They could have applied for the waste water permit, I assume there was a business decision on a high level not to. It worked out well for miller, no use operating an satellite branch when you can produce the same thing at their mega-brewery in Milwaukee for cheaper.
Meanwhile the brewery itself is still in operation, they just produce fancy bottled water instead of beer.
Having said that I am amazed by the amount of taxes, regulations and restrictions a Washington business endures in Washington.
No one's stopping you from leaving.
Democrats that denied the development will lament that homes are too expensive and there is need for new homes for the poor.
There will always be too few homes for the poor. Maybe we should give them discounted education so they can learn skills that will allow them to move to middle class. It might cost a bit but like the GI Bill it pays off highly in the end.
This state has long passed the tipping point and is no longer comptetitive with other states and few countries. Many businesses have moved out. Few business have filled the vacuum.
Yet people are still moving here. This would have been a great asset for the Seattle community...yet it's been put on hold due to the credit crisis. How is this a sign that Washington is no longer competitive if this sort of development is happening. This would have been a valuable asset in terms of jobs and office space to the region had the credit crisis not interfered.
Hard to see Washington as not competitive when we seem to be doing better than a lot of other areas of the country (like the parts Sen. McCain is touring) during this "economic slowdown".
Food Crisis Starts Eclipsing Climate Change Worries
An estimated 30% of America�s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.
�It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,� Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. �It�s not going to be a very good diet but that�s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.�
They don't have enough to eat. Five people are dead in Port Au Prince, Haiti after a week of food riots. Unions in Burkina Faso have called a general strike to protest the high cost of grain. Food riots have rocked Egypt, Cameroon, Indonesia, Ethiopia and other nations. In Manila, police with M-16s have supervised the sale and distribution of subsidized grain. Hoarders have been threatened with life imprisonment. In Thailand and Pakistan, troops are guarding fields and warehouses. In Egypt, the army has been called out to bake bread. Even in the United States, a run on rice has caused big-box retailers Sam's Club and Costco to limit the amount of rice consumers can purchase per visit (though the cap is extremely generous -- each customer can buy four 20 pound bags of rice per day at Costco).
"When the hidden costs of conversion are included, greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol over the next 30 years will be twice as high as from regular gasoline. In the long term, it will take 167 years before the reduction in carbon emissions from using ethanol 'pays back' the carbon released by land-use change."
"When millions of people are going hungry," Palaniappan Chidambaram, India's finance minister told the Journal, "it's a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels."
Junk science fad is starving 100 million more people
From USA Today:
Alarmed by rising global food prices, some European leaders are rethinking their commitment to use ethanol fuel and are considering other policy changes to lower the costs of basic staples.
The use of corn and sugar to make ethanol is a main driver of rampant inflation in worldwide food costs during the past year. Grocery bills are up across Europe, and the United Nations World Food Program says that rising food prices have pushed 100 million people into hunger worldwide.
�A world food crisis � threatens to roll back progress made in recent years to lift millions of people out of poverty and, through increased inflation, affects us all,� Brown said before opening a summit here on the world food crisis.
NASA measures global temperatures
NASA is spending around 20 million dollars a year to deploy and monitor 3000 robot buoys around the worlds oceans and the data coming in doesn't support their theory on global warming, in fact it turns out the world has cooled slightly in the last five years.
Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. "There has been a very slight cooling..."
Pardon me, but do you have any food?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 25, 2008 11:54 AMEthanol, as we produce it today, is 20% less efficient than gasoline. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce enough ethanol to fill the tank of the average American automobile. (Think about that for a minute. It also takes about 450 pounds of corn to feed one person for a year.) It is too corrosive to be shipped via pipeline and must be trucked to distribution points. Added to these negatives...it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel, coal, oil, or natural gas, to produce one gallon of ethanol.
Writing on the Mother Jones website, Cameron Scott says, "To grow enough corn for ethanol to replace our oil addiction would require approximately 482 million acres of cropland, exceeding the total of 434 million acres of cropland used for all food and fiber. This does not even account for projected growth of oil consumption in the U.S."
Added to these problem areas, ethanol production increases, rather than reduces, environmental concerns. Production requires the application of petroleum-based fertilizers that have contributed heavily to the emission of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. To produce a gallon of ethanol requires three to five gallons of water and results in 13 gallons of toxic trash and wastewater. It takes the energy equivalent of 113 liters of gas to treat this waste.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 25, 2008 01:28 PM
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous, Michael Crichton
" Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. "
" This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms. "...Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 25, 2008 01:35 PM
Here's a reminder for the confused Catholic...Commandment #8: Thou shalt not steal.
Nice try.
And by the way have you noticed how your comrade the ever angry LBV COPIES ENTIRE TEXTS?
Grow up and come back with a valid rebuttal... or ANY rebuttal.
Here is an example of Tax the Rich consequences: In the seventies under Jimmy Carter (D) Congress with a democratic majority, placed a luxury tax on expensive items: boats, planes, cars, diamonds, etc. The luxury tax successfully destroyed the boating industry. Major boating manufacturers laid off thousands of employees in Washington and across the country. The rich bought boats in other countries. Who lost. Ask the employees I laid off at that time and they will tell you. The very same middle class blue collar worker so beloved by the Democrats lost. Of course we remembered what happened after Reagan was elected. The double digit unemployment was reduced to single digits as businesses began to rehire. Then investors began to invest and Americans enjoyed 20 years of prosperity. This is but one recent example describing the worthless value of high taxes germinating from the mindset of tax the rich.
Enjoy the weekend.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 25, 2008 09:13 PM
