Green Exchange occupies the former Frederick Cooper Lamp Company building, built in 1914, and originally home to the Vassar Swiss Underwear Company. Cooper bought the building in 1967 and in 2005, relocated to China[2]. In 2004, Cooper announced it was closing down the factory in Chicago. In order to keep the building from being turned into condominiums, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association (LSNA), a grass-roots community organization, organized neighbors, veteran Cooper workers, and the U.S. Green Building Council to form the Cooper Lamps Task Force. As Cooper began to lay off workers during the summer of 2005, the Task Force negotiated for severance benefits from the owners and applied for enhanced job-training from the city. With the support of 1st Ward Alderman Manny Flores for a jobs-focused use for the plant, the building was sold to Baum Development, LLC, a commercial developer who agreed to pursue a use for the building that would create jobs[3].
Baum Development worked with the Commission on Chicago Landmarks and the National Park Service to win landmark protection for the building. Ninety-six percent of the original building structure will be rehabilitated and maintained to preserve this landmark structure[4].
Three times larger than the Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center in Portland, OR, Green Exchange is the country’s largest sustainable business community that will only house tenants offering green products and services[5]. According to David Baum, one of the developers, "In order to be a tenant in Green Exchange, you must be doing something to advance the green marketplace.” Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley has described the project as “a great example of the public-private partnerships that are working together to help make Chicago one of the most environmentally friendly cities in the nation.”[6]
[edit] Building
Green Exchange is located on West Diversey Avenue alongside the Kennedy Expressway, from which the building’s iconic four story clock tower can be seen. The tower underwent significant rehabilitation in 2008 to restore the façade’s original architectural ornamentation. The building‘s conversion has been headed by Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture. The first and second floors are intended for retail stores and showrooms while the third and fourth floors are for shared and individual office spaces[6]. About 20 percent of these are work/live units ranging from 700 to 1,500 square feet for business owners who want a kitchenette and bath and for start-up owners who want to live in their workspace. Additional tenant amenities include bike rooms, showers and environmentally-friendly meeting and event space[4].
The 272,000-square-foot, four story building is U-shaped, divided into two wings separated by a courtyard. This layout allows natural light to penetrate from more than 600 windows that surround the building. The courtyard is being converted into a parking structure with priority parking for low-emitting vehicles.
The roof of the parking structure will feature an 8,041-square-foot sky garden that will be accessible from the second floor[5]. Rain is collected in a 41,329-gallon cistern underneath the ground floor and used to irrigate plants and grass on the roof[6].
The building lowers utility costs in part due to a building envelope consisting of highly insulated walls and roofs combined with 600 high performance windows. The escalator slows down when no one is using it, thereby reducing energy usage by as much as 30 percent when compared to standard models[6].
A sophisticated HVAC system allows for individualized control of tenant spaces and increased occupant comfort. Solar thermal panels provide hot water and cooling to the building[5] and non-toxic construction materials and coatings improve the indoor air quality[6].
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Showing posts with label Oil Drilling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil Drilling. Show all posts
Monday, October 20, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
DICK CHENEY goes to GEORGIA.....not clost to ATLANTA
For those of you that are so ignoraant in WORLD GEOGRAPHY!
Now that the eyes are on LA and MN , DICK will sneak off to UKRAINE and GEORGIA.
IS anyone watching this LIAR and NEO CON that took us into a IRAQ?
UPDATE 2-Cheney to visit Georgia, Ukraine in September
Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:12pm BST
which hosts two major energy pipelines
CRAWFORD, Texas, Aug 25 (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney will visit Georgia early next month, the White House said on Monday, in an effort to help shore up the small but vital ally after its war with Russia.
At the request of President George W. Bush, Cheney will meet Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and also visit Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Italy during his trip, which will begin on Sept. 2, his office said in a statement.
"The president felt it was important to have the vice president consult with allies in the region on our common security interests," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in Texas, where Bush was spending two weeks at his ranch.
Cheney is due to meet President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Viktor Yushchenko, the president of Ukraine, who has pressed to join the NATO alliance quickly after the Russia-Georgia crisis that unnerved many former Soviet republics.
Russia and Georgia, which hosts two major energy pipelines, went to war after Tbilisi tried to retake the breakaway pro-Russian province of South Ossetia on Aug. 7-8, prompting an overwhelming counter-attack from Moscow.
Russian troops moved into Georgia beyond South Ossetia and a second separatist region of Abkhazia, leading to criticism from the United States and others that Moscow had gone too far.
In Italy, Cheney will meet leaders including Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and address a forum in Lake Como entitled "Intelligence on the World, Europe and Italy," the vice president's office said.
An administration official said the trip had been planned before the fighting broke out between Georgia and Russia but "obviously it has taken on greater importance since recent events." (Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky; Editing by John O'Callaghan)
Now that the eyes are on LA and MN , DICK will sneak off to UKRAINE and GEORGIA.
IS anyone watching this LIAR and NEO CON that took us into a IRAQ?
UPDATE 2-Cheney to visit Georgia, Ukraine in September
Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:12pm BST
which hosts two major energy pipelines
CRAWFORD, Texas, Aug 25 (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney will visit Georgia early next month, the White House said on Monday, in an effort to help shore up the small but vital ally after its war with Russia.
At the request of President George W. Bush, Cheney will meet Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and also visit Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Italy during his trip, which will begin on Sept. 2, his office said in a statement.
"The president felt it was important to have the vice president consult with allies in the region on our common security interests," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in Texas, where Bush was spending two weeks at his ranch.
Cheney is due to meet President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Viktor Yushchenko, the president of Ukraine, who has pressed to join the NATO alliance quickly after the Russia-Georgia crisis that unnerved many former Soviet republics.
Russia and Georgia, which hosts two major energy pipelines, went to war after Tbilisi tried to retake the breakaway pro-Russian province of South Ossetia on Aug. 7-8, prompting an overwhelming counter-attack from Moscow.
Russian troops moved into Georgia beyond South Ossetia and a second separatist region of Abkhazia, leading to criticism from the United States and others that Moscow had gone too far.
In Italy, Cheney will meet leaders including Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and address a forum in Lake Como entitled "Intelligence on the World, Europe and Italy," the vice president's office said.
An administration official said the trip had been planned before the fighting broke out between Georgia and Russia but "obviously it has taken on greater importance since recent events." (Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky; Editing by John O'Callaghan)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Congress failing to increase fuel-efficiency standards....2003
CONGRESS 2003......HMMM......WHO HAD CONTROL?
The incentive, part of President Bush's economic stimulus package approved by Congress earlier this year, is gaining attention from car dealers and accountants across the country.
Published on Monday, December 1, 2003 by the Minneapolis Star Tribune
Going Backwards
Tax Breaks Target Big SUVs
by Elizabeth Dunbar and Rob Hotakainen
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Taking the advice of her accountant, Carolyn Hodgson found a way to reduce her federal taxes this year: She spent $38,117 on a sport-utility vehicle.
After deducting the cost of the 2002 GMC Yukon Denali from her 2003 income, Hodgson figures she'll end up saving about $14,000.
"It helps offset some of the other rising expenses businesses are facing," said Hodgson, of Plymouth, who bought the SUV for her Edina delivery business.
Bad policy. It encourages the use of the most fuel-inefficient means of transportation in urban America.
Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar
The incentive, part of President Bush's economic stimulus package approved by Congress earlier this year, is gaining attention from car dealers and accountants across the country.
For years, business owners have been able to use vehicle purchases as tax write-offs for equipment, but now the rules have changed dramatically.
In a move intended to encourage businesses to invest in new equipment, Congress is allowing a full deduction of as much as $100,000 for business equipment. In previous years, the equipment deduction was limited to $25,000.
Included in the category of equipment are vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds when fully loaded -- which can mean heavy-duty pickups used in construction work or Cadillac Escalades.
For those who buy smaller vehicles, the tax benefit is much less attractive. The maximum deduction businesses can take this year for a new car weighing less than 6,000 pounds is $10,710. And while the deduction for large vehicles can be taken in a single year, the deduction for smaller cars must be spread out over five years.
In New York, RIA senior tax analyst Bob Trinz is urging people who run small businesses or professional practices to "buy yourself an SUV for Christmas." And in the Twin Cities, car dealers are realizing that the break could be good for business.
"We're going to take advantage of this and go after it in the next 60 days," said Michael Kahn, sales manager at Stillwater Motors.
Kahn said the tax break has meant a bigger demand for trucks, vans and SUVs. For example, instead of stocking two or three Chevy Express cargo vans, Kahn has 15. And he's trying to get the word out because he says it will help his business and the economy.
Heft helps
The tax law is encouraging a bigger-is-better mentality among both auto dealers and the buying public.
To qualify, vehicles must be used mainly for business. At least 38 vehicles hit the 6,000-pound weight requirement, including Dodge Durangos, Lincoln Navigators and Toyota Land Cruisers. Buick introduced a new luxury SUV for 2004 that barely meets the cutoff: 6,001 pounds fully loaded. A buyer who has more than $50,000 to spend could shop for a Range Rover or a Hummer H2.
"We've seen a change in the type of vehicles that some people are buying," said Cheryl Meyer, an accountant with Biebl and Ranweiler in New Ulm, Minn. The firm's tax advisers have been talking about the tax breaks at state and national conferences for accountants.
Some dealers are expecting an end-of-the-year rush because small-business owners who buy and use qualifying vehicles before Dec. 31 can deduct the entire amount from their taxable income this year.
So far, Kahn said, funeral homes, construction companies, real estate agents and delivery services are among those taking advantage of the tax break.
"People come in and want to upgrade their whole fleet, so they're coming in with big orders," he said.
Tom Johnson, a Minneapolis tax adviser for Boulay, Heutmaker and Zibell, said he hasn't seen people buy vehicles that they don't need or can't afford.
"It's still an economic decision," he said. "But if they need a vehicle like that, it makes it much more attractive."
Even with the tax break, consumers have to think about how much they'll spend on gas. The larger SUVs generally get between 9 and 15 miles per gallon.
Hodgson said she already discovered the drawback.
"This thing is horrible," she said of her Denali, adding that she's at the gas pump every three days. "I step on the gas and you can just watch the gas gauge drop."
Opponents fuming
Environmentalists and fiscal watchdogs are fuming.
They say that not only is Congress failing to increase fuel-efficiency standards, but now Washington is allowing tax breaks that encourage bigger vehicles.
"Just by increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, we could answer a major part of the challenge of America's energy future," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
"As long as SUVs are flying off of dealership lots, the current break makes no fiscal sense," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., and 26 other House Democrats are cosponsoring a bill that would plug the SUV loophole. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
"Giving tax breaks to encourage the selling of these heavy, gas-inefficient SUVs . . . doesn't do anything to help us reduce our dependency on oil," McCollum said.
Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar, the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the tax break is "bad policy," adding: "It encourages the use of the most fuel-inefficient means of transportation in urban America."
While the legislation to plug the SUV loophole is pending, nothing is scheduled to change anytime soon. When Congress considered an energy bill earlier this month, efforts to change the deduction back to $25,000 failed. Under current law, the $100,000 deduction will end on Dec. 31, 2005, returning to the $25,000 level.
For now, business groups argue that the increased deduction is helping businesses expand, even if it means more people are buying SUVs.
"In the big picture, you're stimulating the economy by giving small business owners a bigger deduction," said Raj Nisankarao, president of the National Business Association.
He said that people often forget that the new $100,000 limit is allowing businesses to purchase more equipment and supplies than the $25,000 limit permitted.
But McCollum said the need for an SUV tax break has never come up in conversation with a small-business owner.
Though Hodgson said she appreciates the tax break, she wonders whether the money could be spent elsewhere.
"It just seems like this is helping the people who are already successful," she said.
© Copyright 2003 Star Tribune
The incentive, part of President Bush's economic stimulus package approved by Congress earlier this year, is gaining attention from car dealers and accountants across the country.
Published on Monday, December 1, 2003 by the Minneapolis Star Tribune
Going Backwards
Tax Breaks Target Big SUVs
by Elizabeth Dunbar and Rob Hotakainen
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Taking the advice of her accountant, Carolyn Hodgson found a way to reduce her federal taxes this year: She spent $38,117 on a sport-utility vehicle.
After deducting the cost of the 2002 GMC Yukon Denali from her 2003 income, Hodgson figures she'll end up saving about $14,000.
"It helps offset some of the other rising expenses businesses are facing," said Hodgson, of Plymouth, who bought the SUV for her Edina delivery business.
Bad policy. It encourages the use of the most fuel-inefficient means of transportation in urban America.
Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar
The incentive, part of President Bush's economic stimulus package approved by Congress earlier this year, is gaining attention from car dealers and accountants across the country.
For years, business owners have been able to use vehicle purchases as tax write-offs for equipment, but now the rules have changed dramatically.
In a move intended to encourage businesses to invest in new equipment, Congress is allowing a full deduction of as much as $100,000 for business equipment. In previous years, the equipment deduction was limited to $25,000.
Included in the category of equipment are vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds when fully loaded -- which can mean heavy-duty pickups used in construction work or Cadillac Escalades.
For those who buy smaller vehicles, the tax benefit is much less attractive. The maximum deduction businesses can take this year for a new car weighing less than 6,000 pounds is $10,710. And while the deduction for large vehicles can be taken in a single year, the deduction for smaller cars must be spread out over five years.
In New York, RIA senior tax analyst Bob Trinz is urging people who run small businesses or professional practices to "buy yourself an SUV for Christmas." And in the Twin Cities, car dealers are realizing that the break could be good for business.
"We're going to take advantage of this and go after it in the next 60 days," said Michael Kahn, sales manager at Stillwater Motors.
Kahn said the tax break has meant a bigger demand for trucks, vans and SUVs. For example, instead of stocking two or three Chevy Express cargo vans, Kahn has 15. And he's trying to get the word out because he says it will help his business and the economy.
Heft helps
The tax law is encouraging a bigger-is-better mentality among both auto dealers and the buying public.
To qualify, vehicles must be used mainly for business. At least 38 vehicles hit the 6,000-pound weight requirement, including Dodge Durangos, Lincoln Navigators and Toyota Land Cruisers. Buick introduced a new luxury SUV for 2004 that barely meets the cutoff: 6,001 pounds fully loaded. A buyer who has more than $50,000 to spend could shop for a Range Rover or a Hummer H2.
"We've seen a change in the type of vehicles that some people are buying," said Cheryl Meyer, an accountant with Biebl and Ranweiler in New Ulm, Minn. The firm's tax advisers have been talking about the tax breaks at state and national conferences for accountants.
Some dealers are expecting an end-of-the-year rush because small-business owners who buy and use qualifying vehicles before Dec. 31 can deduct the entire amount from their taxable income this year.
So far, Kahn said, funeral homes, construction companies, real estate agents and delivery services are among those taking advantage of the tax break.
"People come in and want to upgrade their whole fleet, so they're coming in with big orders," he said.
Tom Johnson, a Minneapolis tax adviser for Boulay, Heutmaker and Zibell, said he hasn't seen people buy vehicles that they don't need or can't afford.
"It's still an economic decision," he said. "But if they need a vehicle like that, it makes it much more attractive."
Even with the tax break, consumers have to think about how much they'll spend on gas. The larger SUVs generally get between 9 and 15 miles per gallon.
Hodgson said she already discovered the drawback.
"This thing is horrible," she said of her Denali, adding that she's at the gas pump every three days. "I step on the gas and you can just watch the gas gauge drop."
Opponents fuming
Environmentalists and fiscal watchdogs are fuming.
They say that not only is Congress failing to increase fuel-efficiency standards, but now Washington is allowing tax breaks that encourage bigger vehicles.
"Just by increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, we could answer a major part of the challenge of America's energy future," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
"As long as SUVs are flying off of dealership lots, the current break makes no fiscal sense," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., and 26 other House Democrats are cosponsoring a bill that would plug the SUV loophole. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
"Giving tax breaks to encourage the selling of these heavy, gas-inefficient SUVs . . . doesn't do anything to help us reduce our dependency on oil," McCollum said.
Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar, the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the tax break is "bad policy," adding: "It encourages the use of the most fuel-inefficient means of transportation in urban America."
While the legislation to plug the SUV loophole is pending, nothing is scheduled to change anytime soon. When Congress considered an energy bill earlier this month, efforts to change the deduction back to $25,000 failed. Under current law, the $100,000 deduction will end on Dec. 31, 2005, returning to the $25,000 level.
For now, business groups argue that the increased deduction is helping businesses expand, even if it means more people are buying SUVs.
"In the big picture, you're stimulating the economy by giving small business owners a bigger deduction," said Raj Nisankarao, president of the National Business Association.
He said that people often forget that the new $100,000 limit is allowing businesses to purchase more equipment and supplies than the $25,000 limit permitted.
But McCollum said the need for an SUV tax break has never come up in conversation with a small-business owner.
Though Hodgson said she appreciates the tax break, she wonders whether the money could be spent elsewhere.
"It just seems like this is helping the people who are already successful," she said.
© Copyright 2003 Star Tribune
“Bush Buy SUVs” program
.....
Now the Federals are fighting dumb with dumber.
The Bush administration has proposed tripling a little-know tax deduction that dermatologists, real estate agents, accountants or business consultants can use to buy the biggest SUVs.
It’s a highly stimulating provision in the administration’s economic stimulus program. The loophole would allow someone who buys an $102,581 Hummer H1 for “business purposes” to deduct $87,135 from his taxes immediately. Seriously. Good deal if you can get it.
In December, The Detroit News first reported that lots of self-employed dentists and lawyers were gettin’ it. The auto industry’s hometown paper also was the first to figure out that the new Bush plan would turn the SUV loophole into a four-car garage in the tax code.
"Oh, you've got to be kidding," said Skip Barnett, a Hummer dealer in Atlanta when the News told him about the Bush tax plan's new SUV subsidy. "That would make a Hummer practically free." Bingo.
In case you were wondering, a businessman who wants to stimulate the economy by buying a Ford Taurus or a BMW convertible can’t get these big tax breaks.
That’s because in the 1980s, Congress put limits on how much small businesses and the self-employed could write-off for fancy cars. But they exempted vehicles that weighed more than 6,000 pounds because they didn’t want to discourage farmers and builders from buying pickup trucks and big vans. SUVs weren’t yet popular with soccer moms and football dads.
So now a chiropractor in Sausalito can buy a top of the line Hummer for that $102,581 and then claim a $75,000 deduction for capital equipment, an $8,274 post-Sep. 11 bonus capital equipment deduction and a first-year depreciation allowance of $3,861. The total deduction: $87,135. Assuming the driver is in the top income bracket, the federal tax savings for buying a Hummer is $33,634.
Bet you feel like a sucker for missing out, don’t you?
The Bush administration certainly thinks we’re suckers when it comes to SUVs.
As the administration’s right-hand writes big deductions for big vehicles into the tax code, the administration’s left-hand is grasping to make these road monsters safer. The country’s top road safety regulator, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently told an auto industry group, “The fatality rate per 100,000 registered SUVs is about three times higher than it is for passenger cars. It doesn’t take a statistician to tell you something is wrong here.”
Runge also said that he wouldn’t let his family ride in rollover prone SUVs “if they were the last vehicles on earth.” That really sent Detroit into a tailspin.
The “Bush Buy SUVs” program also collides with the administration’s recent decision to force car companies to improve the fuel economy of SUVs, pickups and minivans by 7 percent over the next few years.
The bottom line is absurd: the government wants to increase its subsidy for buying vehicles it says are unsafe, gas-guzzling polluters.
That makes about as much sense as asking “What Would Jesus Drive?”
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is Editorial Director of CBSNews.com based in Washington.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/meyer/main537649.shtml
Now the Federals are fighting dumb with dumber.
The Bush administration has proposed tripling a little-know tax deduction that dermatologists, real estate agents, accountants or business consultants can use to buy the biggest SUVs.
It’s a highly stimulating provision in the administration’s economic stimulus program. The loophole would allow someone who buys an $102,581 Hummer H1 for “business purposes” to deduct $87,135 from his taxes immediately. Seriously. Good deal if you can get it.
In December, The Detroit News first reported that lots of self-employed dentists and lawyers were gettin’ it. The auto industry’s hometown paper also was the first to figure out that the new Bush plan would turn the SUV loophole into a four-car garage in the tax code.
"Oh, you've got to be kidding," said Skip Barnett, a Hummer dealer in Atlanta when the News told him about the Bush tax plan's new SUV subsidy. "That would make a Hummer practically free." Bingo.
In case you were wondering, a businessman who wants to stimulate the economy by buying a Ford Taurus or a BMW convertible can’t get these big tax breaks.
That’s because in the 1980s, Congress put limits on how much small businesses and the self-employed could write-off for fancy cars. But they exempted vehicles that weighed more than 6,000 pounds because they didn’t want to discourage farmers and builders from buying pickup trucks and big vans. SUVs weren’t yet popular with soccer moms and football dads.
So now a chiropractor in Sausalito can buy a top of the line Hummer for that $102,581 and then claim a $75,000 deduction for capital equipment, an $8,274 post-Sep. 11 bonus capital equipment deduction and a first-year depreciation allowance of $3,861. The total deduction: $87,135. Assuming the driver is in the top income bracket, the federal tax savings for buying a Hummer is $33,634.
Bet you feel like a sucker for missing out, don’t you?
The Bush administration certainly thinks we’re suckers when it comes to SUVs.
As the administration’s right-hand writes big deductions for big vehicles into the tax code, the administration’s left-hand is grasping to make these road monsters safer. The country’s top road safety regulator, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently told an auto industry group, “The fatality rate per 100,000 registered SUVs is about three times higher than it is for passenger cars. It doesn’t take a statistician to tell you something is wrong here.”
Runge also said that he wouldn’t let his family ride in rollover prone SUVs “if they were the last vehicles on earth.” That really sent Detroit into a tailspin.
The “Bush Buy SUVs” program also collides with the administration’s recent decision to force car companies to improve the fuel economy of SUVs, pickups and minivans by 7 percent over the next few years.
The bottom line is absurd: the government wants to increase its subsidy for buying vehicles it says are unsafe, gas-guzzling polluters.
That makes about as much sense as asking “What Would Jesus Drive?”
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is Editorial Director of CBSNews.com based in Washington.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/meyer/main537649.shtml
OIL LEASES........GIVE EM UP!!!!! BIG TAX BREAKS FOR SUV PURCHASE!!
Bush plan gives huge tax break to buyers of big SUVs
Let someone or some other company takeover the OIL LEASES that are all COVERED UP!!!
Give me a break!
Where were the REPUBLICANS when the TAX BREAKS were given for the SUV Purchases.
Posted 1/21/2003 9:22 AM Updated 1/21/2003 9:22 AM
Advertisement
RELATED STORIES
Hearings
Criticism flies over automakers' SUV safety plans
Crash tests may make SUVs even more deadly
Top official backs off SUV safety comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUVs under fire
PR company comes up with 2 campaigns taking SUVs to task
Automakers defend SUVs as criticism grows
Regulator criticizes SUVs on safety front
Anti-SUV movement grows
Bush plan gives huge tax break to buyers of big SUVsBy David Kiley, USA TODAY
DETROIT — Buying big, luxurious sport-utility vehicles could cost a lot less under the Bush administration's economic stimulus proposal, even though a Bush appointee blasted SUVs last week as dangerous fuel hogs.
Small businesses and the self-employed could deduct the entire cost, up to $75,000, from business income the year of the purchase. Normally it would be written off over several years, using a depreciation schedule. Deducting the entire cost in one year considerably reduces that year's taxable income, and income taxes. In some cases, it could result in paying no federal income tax.
A similar deduction in the current tax code is limited to $25,000. Tripling that creates a much more alluring incentive at a time when SUVs are under fire for fuel consumption and safety concerns.
Bush appointee Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, scolded automakers at an industry conference one week ago for not making SUVs safer and more fuel efficient. He told reporters that he considers some SUVs so dangerous he wouldn't allow his family in them "if they were the last vehicles on Earth."
A stung auto industry shot back with statistics showing SUVs are very safe in the most common types of crashes.
White House spokesman Taylor Gross said Monday that the provision "is not designed to favor one vehicle over another, but rather to allow small businesses to buy more equipment and to create more jobs."
Computers and other equipment do also get favorable treatment in the provision to help small businesses and the self-employed upgrade their hardware. But the language regarding vehicles limits the tax benefit to those with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or more. That means full-size SUVs and pickups.
As a result, an accountant who'd do fine with a 30-mile-per-gallon compact sedan as a company car could be enticed into a big, 15-mpg SUV instead because of the deduction. Or a real estate agent about to buy a 20-mpg midsize SUV that doesn't qualify for the deduction might opt for a full-size SUV instead, because it does qualify.
Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) estimates that the current deduction cuts tax revenue $1 billion for every 100,000 SUVs, and vows to lobby against tripling the amount. "The market for personal-use SUVs has outgrown the original intent of this tax break," says Aileen Roder of TCS.
"When a loophole gives an accountant an incentive to deduct the cost of his luxury SUV, it makes the argument of how ridiculous" it is, says Jonathan Collegio of Americans for Tax Reform.
During furious SUV sales last month, "We did have some people coming in saying, 'My accountant told me I better buy something,' " says Chevrolet dealer Jerry Haggerty in Glen Ellyn, Ill.
Contributing: Gannett News Service
Let someone or some other company takeover the OIL LEASES that are all COVERED UP!!!
Give me a break!
Where were the REPUBLICANS when the TAX BREAKS were given for the SUV Purchases.
Posted 1/21/2003 9:22 AM Updated 1/21/2003 9:22 AM
Advertisement
RELATED STORIES
Hearings
Criticism flies over automakers' SUV safety plans
Crash tests may make SUVs even more deadly
Top official backs off SUV safety comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUVs under fire
PR company comes up with 2 campaigns taking SUVs to task
Automakers defend SUVs as criticism grows
Regulator criticizes SUVs on safety front
Anti-SUV movement grows
Bush plan gives huge tax break to buyers of big SUVsBy David Kiley, USA TODAY
DETROIT — Buying big, luxurious sport-utility vehicles could cost a lot less under the Bush administration's economic stimulus proposal, even though a Bush appointee blasted SUVs last week as dangerous fuel hogs.
Small businesses and the self-employed could deduct the entire cost, up to $75,000, from business income the year of the purchase. Normally it would be written off over several years, using a depreciation schedule. Deducting the entire cost in one year considerably reduces that year's taxable income, and income taxes. In some cases, it could result in paying no federal income tax.
A similar deduction in the current tax code is limited to $25,000. Tripling that creates a much more alluring incentive at a time when SUVs are under fire for fuel consumption and safety concerns.
Bush appointee Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, scolded automakers at an industry conference one week ago for not making SUVs safer and more fuel efficient. He told reporters that he considers some SUVs so dangerous he wouldn't allow his family in them "if they were the last vehicles on Earth."
A stung auto industry shot back with statistics showing SUVs are very safe in the most common types of crashes.
White House spokesman Taylor Gross said Monday that the provision "is not designed to favor one vehicle over another, but rather to allow small businesses to buy more equipment and to create more jobs."
Computers and other equipment do also get favorable treatment in the provision to help small businesses and the self-employed upgrade their hardware. But the language regarding vehicles limits the tax benefit to those with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or more. That means full-size SUVs and pickups.
As a result, an accountant who'd do fine with a 30-mile-per-gallon compact sedan as a company car could be enticed into a big, 15-mpg SUV instead because of the deduction. Or a real estate agent about to buy a 20-mpg midsize SUV that doesn't qualify for the deduction might opt for a full-size SUV instead, because it does qualify.
Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) estimates that the current deduction cuts tax revenue $1 billion for every 100,000 SUVs, and vows to lobby against tripling the amount. "The market for personal-use SUVs has outgrown the original intent of this tax break," says Aileen Roder of TCS.
"When a loophole gives an accountant an incentive to deduct the cost of his luxury SUV, it makes the argument of how ridiculous" it is, says Jonathan Collegio of Americans for Tax Reform.
During furious SUV sales last month, "We did have some people coming in saying, 'My accountant told me I better buy something,' " says Chevrolet dealer Jerry Haggerty in Glen Ellyn, Ill.
Contributing: Gannett News Service
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
DRILL, DRILL , DRILL....Is that all we can think of?
With a President with the intelligence capacity , I guess that is all we KNOW!
OIL!!!!
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!
Does T Boone Pickens have any credibility with any real thinkers?
"But Pickens knows he’s unique. Unless, he says, “Congress adopts clear, predictable policies” — with long-term tax incentives and infrastructure — so thousands of investors can jump into clean power, we’ll never get the scale we need to break our addiction. For a year, Senate Republicans have been blocking such incentives for wind and solar energy. They vote again next week.
If only we had a Congress and president who, instead of chasing crazy schemes like offshore drilling and releasing oil from our strategic reserve, just sat down with Boone and Shai and asked one question: “What laws do we need to enact to foster 1,000 more like you?” Then just do it, and get out of the way. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27friedman.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
OIL!!!!
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!
Does T Boone Pickens have any credibility with any real thinkers?
"But Pickens knows he’s unique. Unless, he says, “Congress adopts clear, predictable policies” — with long-term tax incentives and infrastructure — so thousands of investors can jump into clean power, we’ll never get the scale we need to break our addiction. For a year, Senate Republicans have been blocking such incentives for wind and solar energy. They vote again next week.
If only we had a Congress and president who, instead of chasing crazy schemes like offshore drilling and releasing oil from our strategic reserve, just sat down with Boone and Shai and asked one question: “What laws do we need to enact to foster 1,000 more like you?” Then just do it, and get out of the way. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27friedman.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Friday, July 25, 2008
Many oil industry insiders believe this is a bubble
Peak Oil or Oil Bubble? - The Oil Bubble ArgumentWritten by FrugalTrader on Jul 24, 2008 filed under Ed Rempel
This is a guest post from Ed Rempel (CFP and CMA). For those of you joining us recently, Ed has written a number of controversial articles for MDJ in the past. Today’s article is a continuation from yesterdays post with a counter argument that it’s not peak oil but an oil bubble.. Make sure to participate in the poll at the end.
In his 1998 book, “The Roaring 2002’s”, demographics expert Harry Dent predicted that the large block of baby boomers in their peak earning years would cause one financial bubble after another. Since then, we had the tech bubble, a real estate bubble in the US, nearly an income trust bubble in Canada, Chinese stock market bubble, and now what looks like an oil and resources bubble.
Just like the unlimited potential of the internet that led to the tech bubble, there are real explanations for oil’s rise, but they do not explain a price increase from $10 to $145/barrel.
Arguments in favour of a Oil Bubble
1. Index futures for oil and resources have been created in the last couple of years and have resulted in massive speculation that has driven much of the oil price rise. Many institutional investors are allocating a portion of their assets to commodities primarily through the futures market, which has created incremental “investment demand”. Commodity index futures are about 80% oil. Because of the comparatively high price inelasticity of both oil supply and demand, relatively small disruptions in supply or increments in demand can have outsized effects on price.
According to a May 19, 2008 report titled “Blame It on Your Pension Fund” from Probability Analytics Research in Chicago, open interest in the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude and Brent Crude oil contracts traded have more than tripled over the last 5 years, rising by 1.3 million. At 1,000 barrels per contract, this represents incremental demand of 1.3 billion barrels of oil, or about 53% of the increase in world oil “consumption” over that period. Index speculators would not necessarily have accounted for all of that increase in open interest, but Michael Masters (Masters Capital Management), in testimony before a Senate subcommittee on May 20, 2008, estimated that over the last 5 years, index speculators through the futures market increased their net exposure to petroleum products by the equivalent of 848 million barrels of oil, an impact roughly equivalent to the 920 million barrel increase in demand from China over that period.
In a tight market for physical oil, how large a price impact could the incremental investment demand from commodity indexers have had? Probability Analytics Research estimated the equilibrium oil price without investment demand is $60-75 per barrel, with investment demand adding roughly $60 to the price of oil.
2. Demand is not out-pacing supply. In the last 12 months, world oil demand is up only 2%, while supply is up 2.5%. Meanwhile, the price has nearly doubled. How can this be anything other than pure speculation?
3. Most oil experts assume the proper oil price should be between $60-90/barrel. Almost all oil analysts assume a price of $80-90/barrel when valuing oil company shares. The $60-70 range is often quoted by Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi as being a realistic price for oil, since that is the marginal cost of production for alternative energy sources. In fact, OPEC, which controls 40% of the world’s oil, states that there is “no justification for oil above $80/barrel” and that “fundamentals do not support a price above $80/barrel”.
4. Anecdotal evidence is that the long-awaited demand reductions resulting from high oil prices may have begun. The widely-used quote is: “The cure for $145 oil is $145 oil.” Airlines—choking on $4 per gallon jet fuel prices—are slashing capacity. Sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks are collapsing in the U.S., while small cars and hybrids are flying off the lot. Public transportation use is increasing. Many are changing jobs to be closer to home, or moving closer to their job. Oil demand is starting to drop off throughout the OECD. Demand responses take time, but we may have reached a tipping point. Gary Becker, an economist at the University of Chicago, has calculated that in the past, over periods of less than 5 years, oil consumption in the OECD dropped by only 2% to 9% when oil prices doubled. But over longer periods, consumption dropped by 60%.
5. Oil supply increases may be on the way. Six years is not a long time in the context of the time it takes to develop an oil field. The last doubling of oil prices has occurred in the last year or so. No supply response over that time frame could have been reasonably expected. The largest new field for years was just discovered in Brazil and is estimated to contain 5-8 billion barrels.
6. Huge amounts of oil are thought to exist off-shore. George Bush just lifted an executive ban that has existed since 1990 on off-shore oil drilling. If the legislative ban is also lifted, then off-shore drilling can finally start. Drilling is banned in many other regions rich with oil or gas resources due to long-term energy strategies and environmental concerns.
7. Oil-producing countries do not necessarily have the incentive to increase production as rapidly as oil-consuming nations may want. They may believe that they will maximize the long-term value of their oil reserves by developing them more slowly.
8. Oil price subsidies in many countries will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Higher gas prices in these countries would result in lower demand. The latest jump in oil prices is making subsidies much more costly, and strains on governmental budgets are forcing some nations to lift subsidies. On May 24, Indonesia raised fuel prices by +30%, followed shortly by Taiwan (+13%) and Sri Lanka (+24%). China has just recently increased its gas prices, since the subsidies that amounted to about 1% of GDP.
9. Many European geologists, especially in Russia, still believe in the abiogenic theory. Oil is widely considered to be a fossil fuel in the West, but this belief is far from unanimous world-wide. The abiogenic theory states that oil is created by carbon released by microbes that migrates upward from the earth’s mantle. It has been popularized in the West recently by Thomas Gold, professor at Cornell University. If it is correct, then not only can oil be continuously created, but there may be far more oil in the earth than most believe. Oil companies have not drilled in areas most likely to contain abiogenic oil. Most geologists consider oil to be a fossil fuel, but the abiogenic theory has not been proven false.
10. Governments have not responded with official policies and have not officially expressed concern. Peak Oil has been discussed endlessly in the press and in the financial industry. Governments must know what is going on and are not concerned.
11. Alternative fuel sources will reduce our need for oil. Humans are adaptive. There are many fuel sources available now and high oil prices will make alternative sources much more viable.
12. Peak Oil is being a marketed. Most of the strongest proponents of Peak Oil are in the investment industry working for companies that have made huge amounts of money from rising oil prices.
13. Many oil industry insiders believe this is a bubble. Those that believe this is a bubble include OPEC, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi, Richard Rainwater (Texas oil billionaire), and George Soros (legendary hedge fund manager).
What is your opinion?
Many readers of MDJ are well-read in many issues, so your opinions here would be very interesting. What is your opinion? Which are we currently witnessing?
A. The beginning of Peak Oil.
B. An oil bubble.
http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/peak-oil-or-oil-bubble-the-oil-bubble-argument.htm
This is a guest post from Ed Rempel (CFP and CMA). For those of you joining us recently, Ed has written a number of controversial articles for MDJ in the past. Today’s article is a continuation from yesterdays post with a counter argument that it’s not peak oil but an oil bubble.. Make sure to participate in the poll at the end.
In his 1998 book, “The Roaring 2002’s”, demographics expert Harry Dent predicted that the large block of baby boomers in their peak earning years would cause one financial bubble after another. Since then, we had the tech bubble, a real estate bubble in the US, nearly an income trust bubble in Canada, Chinese stock market bubble, and now what looks like an oil and resources bubble.
Just like the unlimited potential of the internet that led to the tech bubble, there are real explanations for oil’s rise, but they do not explain a price increase from $10 to $145/barrel.
Arguments in favour of a Oil Bubble
1. Index futures for oil and resources have been created in the last couple of years and have resulted in massive speculation that has driven much of the oil price rise. Many institutional investors are allocating a portion of their assets to commodities primarily through the futures market, which has created incremental “investment demand”. Commodity index futures are about 80% oil. Because of the comparatively high price inelasticity of both oil supply and demand, relatively small disruptions in supply or increments in demand can have outsized effects on price.
According to a May 19, 2008 report titled “Blame It on Your Pension Fund” from Probability Analytics Research in Chicago, open interest in the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude and Brent Crude oil contracts traded have more than tripled over the last 5 years, rising by 1.3 million. At 1,000 barrels per contract, this represents incremental demand of 1.3 billion barrels of oil, or about 53% of the increase in world oil “consumption” over that period. Index speculators would not necessarily have accounted for all of that increase in open interest, but Michael Masters (Masters Capital Management), in testimony before a Senate subcommittee on May 20, 2008, estimated that over the last 5 years, index speculators through the futures market increased their net exposure to petroleum products by the equivalent of 848 million barrels of oil, an impact roughly equivalent to the 920 million barrel increase in demand from China over that period.
In a tight market for physical oil, how large a price impact could the incremental investment demand from commodity indexers have had? Probability Analytics Research estimated the equilibrium oil price without investment demand is $60-75 per barrel, with investment demand adding roughly $60 to the price of oil.
2. Demand is not out-pacing supply. In the last 12 months, world oil demand is up only 2%, while supply is up 2.5%. Meanwhile, the price has nearly doubled. How can this be anything other than pure speculation?
3. Most oil experts assume the proper oil price should be between $60-90/barrel. Almost all oil analysts assume a price of $80-90/barrel when valuing oil company shares. The $60-70 range is often quoted by Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi as being a realistic price for oil, since that is the marginal cost of production for alternative energy sources. In fact, OPEC, which controls 40% of the world’s oil, states that there is “no justification for oil above $80/barrel” and that “fundamentals do not support a price above $80/barrel”.
4. Anecdotal evidence is that the long-awaited demand reductions resulting from high oil prices may have begun. The widely-used quote is: “The cure for $145 oil is $145 oil.” Airlines—choking on $4 per gallon jet fuel prices—are slashing capacity. Sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks are collapsing in the U.S., while small cars and hybrids are flying off the lot. Public transportation use is increasing. Many are changing jobs to be closer to home, or moving closer to their job. Oil demand is starting to drop off throughout the OECD. Demand responses take time, but we may have reached a tipping point. Gary Becker, an economist at the University of Chicago, has calculated that in the past, over periods of less than 5 years, oil consumption in the OECD dropped by only 2% to 9% when oil prices doubled. But over longer periods, consumption dropped by 60%.
5. Oil supply increases may be on the way. Six years is not a long time in the context of the time it takes to develop an oil field. The last doubling of oil prices has occurred in the last year or so. No supply response over that time frame could have been reasonably expected. The largest new field for years was just discovered in Brazil and is estimated to contain 5-8 billion barrels.
6. Huge amounts of oil are thought to exist off-shore. George Bush just lifted an executive ban that has existed since 1990 on off-shore oil drilling. If the legislative ban is also lifted, then off-shore drilling can finally start. Drilling is banned in many other regions rich with oil or gas resources due to long-term energy strategies and environmental concerns.
7. Oil-producing countries do not necessarily have the incentive to increase production as rapidly as oil-consuming nations may want. They may believe that they will maximize the long-term value of their oil reserves by developing them more slowly.
8. Oil price subsidies in many countries will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Higher gas prices in these countries would result in lower demand. The latest jump in oil prices is making subsidies much more costly, and strains on governmental budgets are forcing some nations to lift subsidies. On May 24, Indonesia raised fuel prices by +30%, followed shortly by Taiwan (+13%) and Sri Lanka (+24%). China has just recently increased its gas prices, since the subsidies that amounted to about 1% of GDP.
9. Many European geologists, especially in Russia, still believe in the abiogenic theory. Oil is widely considered to be a fossil fuel in the West, but this belief is far from unanimous world-wide. The abiogenic theory states that oil is created by carbon released by microbes that migrates upward from the earth’s mantle. It has been popularized in the West recently by Thomas Gold, professor at Cornell University. If it is correct, then not only can oil be continuously created, but there may be far more oil in the earth than most believe. Oil companies have not drilled in areas most likely to contain abiogenic oil. Most geologists consider oil to be a fossil fuel, but the abiogenic theory has not been proven false.
10. Governments have not responded with official policies and have not officially expressed concern. Peak Oil has been discussed endlessly in the press and in the financial industry. Governments must know what is going on and are not concerned.
11. Alternative fuel sources will reduce our need for oil. Humans are adaptive. There are many fuel sources available now and high oil prices will make alternative sources much more viable.
12. Peak Oil is being a marketed. Most of the strongest proponents of Peak Oil are in the investment industry working for companies that have made huge amounts of money from rising oil prices.
13. Many oil industry insiders believe this is a bubble. Those that believe this is a bubble include OPEC, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi, Richard Rainwater (Texas oil billionaire), and George Soros (legendary hedge fund manager).
What is your opinion?
Many readers of MDJ are well-read in many issues, so your opinions here would be very interesting. What is your opinion? Which are we currently witnessing?
A. The beginning of Peak Oil.
B. An oil bubble.
http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/peak-oil-or-oil-bubble-the-oil-bubble-argument.htm
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Lou Dobbs, HAS FAILED his viewers
Lou Dobbs: If I recall, Gen Petreaus advised Congress and GW Bush that there would be a small window of opportunity! This profound success is exactly what? Have we stopped paying the Sunnis and Shias? Is the window closing or when did that window close? So we know this success is REAL, like you proclaim to be. Exactly what is the success here Lou Dobbs?
You are doing a great job keeping the AMERICANS as IGNORANT as your opinions. Just a tip: opinions are like buttocks, we all have one!
Lou, I thought your expertise was money ? Yet, your devotion to attack Obama throughout your show is quire blatant. But that is ok.
I am curious Mr. Dobbs, when and where was your last trip out of this country? You really need to inform your audience of your passport history. Just so we can verify your expertise when the knowledge we are seeking, from the MEDIA, (which includes you, RADIO and CNN) for information regarding foreign policy or international relations? Please educate us of all your WORLDLY experience. Please Mr. Dobbs, show us!
One last thing, for now, you, Lou Dobbs, HAS FAILED your viewers with incorrect, TRUE information regarding our country’s Financial Institutes in this country! You are an ECONOMIST, or at least PROCLAIM to be. Where have you been Mr. Dobbs? This has not happened over night. Just where have you been? You are a complete FRAUD. And have failed to expose this fraud that is now just sprouting. How long have you known about this fraudulent economy?
You have an agenda. But maybe you can try some real TRUTH and let us know what you REALLY WANT? By the way, I never hear you propose any real answers to all your WHINING!
You are doing a great job keeping the AMERICANS as IGNORANT as your opinions. Just a tip: opinions are like buttocks, we all have one!
Lou, I thought your expertise was money ? Yet, your devotion to attack Obama throughout your show is quire blatant. But that is ok.
I am curious Mr. Dobbs, when and where was your last trip out of this country? You really need to inform your audience of your passport history. Just so we can verify your expertise when the knowledge we are seeking, from the MEDIA, (which includes you, RADIO and CNN) for information regarding foreign policy or international relations? Please educate us of all your WORLDLY experience. Please Mr. Dobbs, show us!
One last thing, for now, you, Lou Dobbs, HAS FAILED your viewers with incorrect, TRUE information regarding our country’s Financial Institutes in this country! You are an ECONOMIST, or at least PROCLAIM to be. Where have you been Mr. Dobbs? This has not happened over night. Just where have you been? You are a complete FRAUD. And have failed to expose this fraud that is now just sprouting. How long have you known about this fraudulent economy?
You have an agenda. But maybe you can try some real TRUTH and let us know what you REALLY WANT? By the way, I never hear you propose any real answers to all your WHINING!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Since Poulsen's trial is now set to begin Oct. 1, it pushes the trial of James K. Happ, another former National Century executive, to Dec. 1.
Now why is this delay for Happ occurring? After the NOVEMBER election of course. Does any reporter really know where Happ is form or what his job at NCFE really was? If so, no one has yet to connect the dot!
Who does Happ really know? (Hint: Bush Connection)
The former CEO of National Century Financial Enterprises Inc. has successfully put off his trial on fraud-related charges by two months.
A federal judge ruled Friday that Lance Poulsen, the leader of the Dublin-based health-care financing company before it collapsed in 2002, will begin facing charges of securities fraud and conspiracy on Oct. 1 instead of Aug. 4. U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley granted Poulsen's July 7 continuance request after Poulsen's attorneys argued they needed more time to review 40 boxes of documents the government is scheduled to make available between now and August.
"A two-month continuance will ensure that Poulsen has the time to obtain and review the documents that he plausibly claims are central to his theories of defense," Marbley wrote in his July 11 order.
Since Poulsen's trial is now set to begin Oct. 1, it pushes the trial of James K. Happ, another former National Century executive, to Dec. 1. Poulsen and Happ have both pleaded not guilty.
Poulsen, 65, co-founded National Century in 1991, building it into a major health-care financing company. It specialized in buying receivables from medical providers at a discount, which gave the health-care businesses the quick cash they needed. The receivables were then packaged as asset-backed bonds and sold to investors.
But National Century fell into Chapter 11 bankruptcy six years ago. The Justice Department alleged Poulsen and other executives ran a sophisticated Ponzi scheme that bilked investors out of nearly $2 billion. Poulsen pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy and concealment of money laundering.
Five other former National Century executives were found guilty in March of running a multiyear securities fraud at National Century. Poulsen was scheduled to go on trial with them, but his day in court on those charges was delayed because the government also accused him of trying to tamper with a witness.
Shortly after the March convictions of the five executives, Poulsen stood trial on the witness tampering charges. A jury found him and an associate, Karl Demmler, guilty of trying to bribe a government witness who is planning to testify against Poulsen in his securities fraud trial.
Who does Happ really know? (Hint: Bush Connection)
The former CEO of National Century Financial Enterprises Inc. has successfully put off his trial on fraud-related charges by two months.
A federal judge ruled Friday that Lance Poulsen, the leader of the Dublin-based health-care financing company before it collapsed in 2002, will begin facing charges of securities fraud and conspiracy on Oct. 1 instead of Aug. 4. U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley granted Poulsen's July 7 continuance request after Poulsen's attorneys argued they needed more time to review 40 boxes of documents the government is scheduled to make available between now and August.
"A two-month continuance will ensure that Poulsen has the time to obtain and review the documents that he plausibly claims are central to his theories of defense," Marbley wrote in his July 11 order.
Since Poulsen's trial is now set to begin Oct. 1, it pushes the trial of James K. Happ, another former National Century executive, to Dec. 1. Poulsen and Happ have both pleaded not guilty.
Poulsen, 65, co-founded National Century in 1991, building it into a major health-care financing company. It specialized in buying receivables from medical providers at a discount, which gave the health-care businesses the quick cash they needed. The receivables were then packaged as asset-backed bonds and sold to investors.
But National Century fell into Chapter 11 bankruptcy six years ago. The Justice Department alleged Poulsen and other executives ran a sophisticated Ponzi scheme that bilked investors out of nearly $2 billion. Poulsen pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy and concealment of money laundering.
Five other former National Century executives were found guilty in March of running a multiyear securities fraud at National Century. Poulsen was scheduled to go on trial with them, but his day in court on those charges was delayed because the government also accused him of trying to tamper with a witness.
Shortly after the March convictions of the five executives, Poulsen stood trial on the witness tampering charges. A jury found him and an associate, Karl Demmler, guilty of trying to bribe a government witness who is planning to testify against Poulsen in his securities fraud trial.
Free Market! Isn't that the American Way?
BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!! JEBB IS OUT OF OFFICE!!!
NOW WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD LISTEN TO ANYTHING BUSH HAS TO SAY? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!! THE ROOSTERS ARE COMING HOME!!
NO REGULATION! KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT! NO OVERSIGHT!
Remember, 2000, BUSH GAVE TAX CUTS TO SUV PURCHASES AND VEHICLES OVER A SPECIFIC TONAGE! BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!!
For the last 20 years, we have heard how the FREE MARKET, is the way to prosperity with little or no oversight of government involvemnet.
This is also the approach to the Health Care system in America. The reason the Finanacial Industry is so CRITICAL, is becuase this has effected the GLOBAL MARKET, not isolating or subjecting to just the effect to AMERICANS as the Health Care System does.
NOW WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD LISTEN TO ANYTHING BUSH HAS TO SAY? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!! THE ROOSTERS ARE COMING HOME!!
NO REGULATION! KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT! NO OVERSIGHT!
Remember, 2000, BUSH GAVE TAX CUTS TO SUV PURCHASES AND VEHICLES OVER A SPECIFIC TONAGE! BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!!
For the last 20 years, we have heard how the FREE MARKET, is the way to prosperity with little or no oversight of government involvemnet.
This is also the approach to the Health Care system in America. The reason the Finanacial Industry is so CRITICAL, is becuase this has effected the GLOBAL MARKET, not isolating or subjecting to just the effect to AMERICANS as the Health Care System does.
Drill! Drill! Dril!!! Is that all you can do?
Is there anything else this half - Educated , LOW INFORMED Nation can think of,t hen to continually live and breath for the FINITE, (Get your Webster out) Resource of OIL!!
Does anyone value EDUCATION or KNOWLEDGE from EXPERIENCE that will HELP US?
Such as T Boone!!!
By Dan Reed, USA TODAY
SWEETWATER, Texas — Get ready, America, T. Boone Pickens is coming to your living room.
The legendary Texas oilman, corporate raider, shareholder-rights crusader, philanthropist and deep-pocketed moneyman for conservative politicians and causes, wants to drive the USA's political and economic agenda.
"We're paying $700 billion a year for foreign oil. It's breaking us as a nation, and I want to elevate that question to the presidential debate, to make it the No. 1 issue of the campaign this year," Pickens says.
Today, Pickens will take the wraps off what he's calling the Pickens Plan for cutting the USA's demand for foreign oil by more than a third in less than a decade. To promote it, he is bankrolling what his aides say will be the biggest public policy ad campaign ever. The website, pickensplan.com, goes live today.
Jay Rosser, Pickens' ever-present public relations man, promises that Pickens' face will be seen on Americans' televisions this fall almost as frequently as John McCain's and Barack Obama's.
"Neither presidential candidate is talking about solving the oil problem. So we're going to make 'em talk about it," Pickens says.
"Nixon said in 1970 that we were importing 20% of our oil and that by 1980 it would be 0%. That didn't happen," Pickens says. "It went to 42% in 1991 with the Gulf War. It's just under 70% now. Where do you think we're going to be in 10 years when our economy is busted and we're importing 80% of our oil?"
Finding solutions to other major issues, including health care, are important, he concedes. But "If you don't solve the energy problem, it's going to break us before we even get to solving health care and some of these other important issues." And it has to be done with the same sense of urgency that President Eisenhower had when he pushed the rapid development of the interstate highway system during the Cold War.
Of course, Pickens also has a particular solution in mind.
Wind. And natural gas.
Last week, Pickens loaded up his $60 million, top-of-the-line Gulfstream G550 corporate jet with reporters and a few associates from his Dallas-based BP Capital energy hedge fund and related companies and flew here to illustrate just how big — and achievable — his vision is.
There's not much to Sweetwater except for wild grasses, scraggy mesquite trees and rattlesnakes (Sweetwater hosts its famous Rattlesnake Roundup each spring). The gently rolling terrain and vegetation make it ideal for raising cattle, which is what its first settlers did in the 19th century, and what their descendants do today. A regional oil boom in the 1950s and 1960s poured money into the area's economy, as have two oil revivals since: one in the 1980s and one now.
But the exciting new industry in town is wind energy. You can drive for 150 miles along Interstate 20 and never be out of sight of a giant wind turbine, claims Sweetwater Mayor Greg Wortham, who does double duty as executive director of the West Texas Wind Energy Consortium.
Were it a country all by itself, Nolan County, Texas, would rank sixth on the list of wind-energy-producing nations, says Wortham. Year-round wind conditions, the terrain, low land prices and a small population make it an ideal location for wind farms. It already produces more wind-generated electricity in a year than all of California. And the business is growing so fast that he struggles to define it by numbers. By year's end, there'll be more than 1,500 turbines in Nolan County, representing a $5 billion investment. In the multicounty Rolling Plains region, there are already 2,000 operating turbines.
Add those operating further west, the Permian Basin region around Midland and Odessa, and the entire area has more than 3,000 turbines operating, producing about 6,000 megawatts of electricity — about equal to the power produced by two to three nuclear power plants.
Growth potential
The growth potential is, well, electrifying.
New turbine towers are going up at a rate of three to four a day in the Sweetwater area, Wortham says. "It depends on the (Texas) Public Utility Commission, but the number could be 20,000 ultimately," Wortham says.
Pickens, who over the past two years has become the USA's biggest wind-power booster, is quick to note that "there could be lots of Sweetwaters out there," especially in the nation's midsection, where winds are ideal for power generation.
Indeed, though Sweetwater is a windy place, plenty of locations farther north in the Great Plains are even better suited to wind farming. One is about 250 miles north of Sweetwater, near Pampa, northeast of Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle. That's where Pickens is building what would be the world's largest wind farm, four times larger than the current titleholder near here. So far, he has spent $2 billion on the project, including a record purchase of nearly 700 wind turbines this year from General Electric. He expects to spend up to $10 billion on the project and to begin generating electricity in 2011.
Though Pickens doesn't own a single wind turbine in the Sweetwater area, Wortham was eager to play host to the oil baron and the reporters traveling with him. Sweetwater, he says, is proof that wind power has much more potential than its many skeptics believe.
"People hear about the 8-foot-tall wind turbines at Logan airport in Boston or the five turbines at Atlantic City and think 'interesting,' " Wortham says. "But they don't see how we can get to the 300,000-megawatt-production level" established by the Bush administration as a national goal for 2030. "Once you come to Sweetwater, you see that it can be done, and be done pretty easily, not only here, but … anywhere there are prime wind conditions. None of this existed seven years ago. Now, we produce enough electricity in this one county to power a large city, and we do it cheaply and cleanly."
Getting lots more electricity with wind is only half of the Pickens Plan. Increasing wind-power production by itself won't reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil because most of that oil is consumed as gasoline.
The key, Pickens says, is that wind energy can be used as a substitute for natural gas now burned to generate electricity. That, in turn, will make far more natural gas available for use as a transportation fuel. Pickens' plan is to produce enough wind power within 10 years to divert 20% of the natural gas now used to fuel power plants for use in cars and trucks. That's much more aggressive a growth plan for the development of wind energy than envisioned by the Department of Energy, which doesn't expect the USA to be getting 20% of its total energy needs from wind until at least 2030.
Pickens foresees as many as a third of the vehicles running on natural gas within only a few years. Julius Pretterebner, director of the Global Oil Group at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, says getting 15% to 20% of the USA's cars to run on natural gas — in some cases, in mixtures with other fuels in dual-fuel vehicles — by 2020 would be an outstanding achievement, and doing that will require federal support to expand the necessary infrastructure.
Powering vehicles with compressed or liquefied natural gas, CNG or LNG, has been Pickens' pet project since the late 1980s.Yet the concept has been very slow to catch on.
Distribution is a major problem. CNG drivers can, like Pickens, install inexpensive equipment to fill up at their homes. But with fewer than 800 natural gas filling stations around the USA, drivers can't count on being able to fill up wherever they go. So, for the most part, CNG, or LNG, has remained limited to fleet operators, such as local bus companies or big-city police departments.
And that's where David Friedman, research director in the vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says most natural-gas-powered vehicles will continue to be operated because of the distribution problem, the lack of vehicles made specifically to run on CNG, and the cost of converting conventional vehicles to run on CNG.
"I honestly think (natural gas') role will be in medium- to heavy-duty vehicles and fleets — and as a stepping stone to hydrogen fuel-cell-powered vehicles in the future," Friedman says. Only one car, a version of the Honda Civic, is available from the factory ready for CNG fuel, he says, and only at a significant premium over the price of a conventionally fueled version.
If you build it …
Pickens aims to shout down the skeptics by taking his case to the people via his TV ad campaign. If the nation is to break its addiction to foreign oil, a network of CNG stations could be built along interstates and in major cities for a relatively small investment, he says. Some gasoline retailers have told him they would add CNG pumps to their stations once they're certain there'll be enough vehicles capable of running on natural gas to justify costs.
Washington, Pickens adds, can encourage the move to natural-gas-powered vehicles by providing modest economic incentives for fuel retailers to invest in CNG pumps at their stations, for automakers to build CNG-powered cars and for individuals to convert their existing vehicles to CNG use. And it should continue to provide tax incentives for another 10 years to encourage wind energy's rapid development as part of an overall plan to wean the nation from foreign oil, he says.
"It certainly would be cheaper than what they're doing already for nuclear," Pickens adds. But he's also in favor of developing more nuclear energy, and every form of alternative energy to reduce oil imports. "Try everything. Do everything. Nuclear. Biomass. Coal. Solar. You name it. I support them all," he says. "But there's only one energy source that can dramatically reduce the amount of oil we have to import each year, and that's (natural) gas."
Pickens is an outspoken believer in the so-called peak oil theory that holds that maximum world production has peaked at about 85 million barrels a day — vs. current demand of about 86 million barrels a day — and will never rise much above that even with lots of new drilling and production.
"Even people who continue driving gasoline-powered cars and trucks will benefit" from his plan, he says.
Critics could easily accuse Pickens of advocating a major new public policy initiative that will line his own pockets. He is, after all, a big player in both the wind power and natural gas businesses. Pickens says while his hedge fund will earn money for its investors, earning more money personally is meaningless: "I'm 80 years old and have $4 billion. I don't need any more money."
He's more concerned that his efforts to make reducing foreign oil dependency the No. 1 issue on the national agenda will be dismissed by the public and, therefore, by Washington. So he says he's carefully steering his plan clear of partisan bickering.
He's already enlisted an unlikely supporter: the Sierra Club. "I will be in the front row of the chorus cheering" him on, says Carl Pope, its executive director, who flew with Pickens to Sweetwater.
Pope sees wind and solar energy as inexpensive sources of power that, along with other non-carbon forms, can be pooled to greatly reduce the need for oil- and coal-fired electric-generating plants.
"When it's cloudy in Dallas and the wind's not blowing in Sweetwater, but the sun's blazing in the (Western) deserts, solar energy can run all those air conditioners in Dallas. When it's windy in Sweetwater and cloudy in the desert, wind energy from Sweetwater can heat homes in Chicago.
"Mr. Pickens and I probably don't see eye-to-eye on some other matters," Pope concedes. "But he's right on this one."
Setting goals, clearing roadblocks
Washington's role, Pope said, should be in setting the goal and clearing roadblocks such as the patchwork of state, regional and federal regulations that block the creation of a true national grid that can shift electricity from anywhere in the country to anywhere that it's needed.
Getting support from groups and people not ordinarily aligned with his conservative political views is important to Pickens. A lifelong Republican, he'll vote for McCain. But he's not involved with McCain's campaign, largely to keep his plan from being dismissed as mere campaign rhetoric.
"This has to be a bipartisan effort," says the man who four years ago offered $1 million to anyone who could disprove the charges made against Democrat nomine Sen. John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
"This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats," Pickens says. "This is about saving our country from the ruination of spending $700 billion a year on oil imports. Ninety days after the oil hits our shores, it's all burned up, and we've got nothing to show for it. But they (foreign oil producers) still have our money. It's killing our economy."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-08-t-boone-pickens-plan-wind-energy_N.htm
Does anyone value EDUCATION or KNOWLEDGE from EXPERIENCE that will HELP US?
Such as T Boone!!!
By Dan Reed, USA TODAY
SWEETWATER, Texas — Get ready, America, T. Boone Pickens is coming to your living room.
The legendary Texas oilman, corporate raider, shareholder-rights crusader, philanthropist and deep-pocketed moneyman for conservative politicians and causes, wants to drive the USA's political and economic agenda.
"We're paying $700 billion a year for foreign oil. It's breaking us as a nation, and I want to elevate that question to the presidential debate, to make it the No. 1 issue of the campaign this year," Pickens says.
Today, Pickens will take the wraps off what he's calling the Pickens Plan for cutting the USA's demand for foreign oil by more than a third in less than a decade. To promote it, he is bankrolling what his aides say will be the biggest public policy ad campaign ever. The website, pickensplan.com, goes live today.
Jay Rosser, Pickens' ever-present public relations man, promises that Pickens' face will be seen on Americans' televisions this fall almost as frequently as John McCain's and Barack Obama's.
"Neither presidential candidate is talking about solving the oil problem. So we're going to make 'em talk about it," Pickens says.
"Nixon said in 1970 that we were importing 20% of our oil and that by 1980 it would be 0%. That didn't happen," Pickens says. "It went to 42% in 1991 with the Gulf War. It's just under 70% now. Where do you think we're going to be in 10 years when our economy is busted and we're importing 80% of our oil?"
Finding solutions to other major issues, including health care, are important, he concedes. But "If you don't solve the energy problem, it's going to break us before we even get to solving health care and some of these other important issues." And it has to be done with the same sense of urgency that President Eisenhower had when he pushed the rapid development of the interstate highway system during the Cold War.
Of course, Pickens also has a particular solution in mind.
Wind. And natural gas.
Last week, Pickens loaded up his $60 million, top-of-the-line Gulfstream G550 corporate jet with reporters and a few associates from his Dallas-based BP Capital energy hedge fund and related companies and flew here to illustrate just how big — and achievable — his vision is.
There's not much to Sweetwater except for wild grasses, scraggy mesquite trees and rattlesnakes (Sweetwater hosts its famous Rattlesnake Roundup each spring). The gently rolling terrain and vegetation make it ideal for raising cattle, which is what its first settlers did in the 19th century, and what their descendants do today. A regional oil boom in the 1950s and 1960s poured money into the area's economy, as have two oil revivals since: one in the 1980s and one now.
But the exciting new industry in town is wind energy. You can drive for 150 miles along Interstate 20 and never be out of sight of a giant wind turbine, claims Sweetwater Mayor Greg Wortham, who does double duty as executive director of the West Texas Wind Energy Consortium.
Were it a country all by itself, Nolan County, Texas, would rank sixth on the list of wind-energy-producing nations, says Wortham. Year-round wind conditions, the terrain, low land prices and a small population make it an ideal location for wind farms. It already produces more wind-generated electricity in a year than all of California. And the business is growing so fast that he struggles to define it by numbers. By year's end, there'll be more than 1,500 turbines in Nolan County, representing a $5 billion investment. In the multicounty Rolling Plains region, there are already 2,000 operating turbines.
Add those operating further west, the Permian Basin region around Midland and Odessa, and the entire area has more than 3,000 turbines operating, producing about 6,000 megawatts of electricity — about equal to the power produced by two to three nuclear power plants.
Growth potential
The growth potential is, well, electrifying.
New turbine towers are going up at a rate of three to four a day in the Sweetwater area, Wortham says. "It depends on the (Texas) Public Utility Commission, but the number could be 20,000 ultimately," Wortham says.
Pickens, who over the past two years has become the USA's biggest wind-power booster, is quick to note that "there could be lots of Sweetwaters out there," especially in the nation's midsection, where winds are ideal for power generation.
Indeed, though Sweetwater is a windy place, plenty of locations farther north in the Great Plains are even better suited to wind farming. One is about 250 miles north of Sweetwater, near Pampa, northeast of Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle. That's where Pickens is building what would be the world's largest wind farm, four times larger than the current titleholder near here. So far, he has spent $2 billion on the project, including a record purchase of nearly 700 wind turbines this year from General Electric. He expects to spend up to $10 billion on the project and to begin generating electricity in 2011.
Though Pickens doesn't own a single wind turbine in the Sweetwater area, Wortham was eager to play host to the oil baron and the reporters traveling with him. Sweetwater, he says, is proof that wind power has much more potential than its many skeptics believe.
"People hear about the 8-foot-tall wind turbines at Logan airport in Boston or the five turbines at Atlantic City and think 'interesting,' " Wortham says. "But they don't see how we can get to the 300,000-megawatt-production level" established by the Bush administration as a national goal for 2030. "Once you come to Sweetwater, you see that it can be done, and be done pretty easily, not only here, but … anywhere there are prime wind conditions. None of this existed seven years ago. Now, we produce enough electricity in this one county to power a large city, and we do it cheaply and cleanly."
Getting lots more electricity with wind is only half of the Pickens Plan. Increasing wind-power production by itself won't reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil because most of that oil is consumed as gasoline.
The key, Pickens says, is that wind energy can be used as a substitute for natural gas now burned to generate electricity. That, in turn, will make far more natural gas available for use as a transportation fuel. Pickens' plan is to produce enough wind power within 10 years to divert 20% of the natural gas now used to fuel power plants for use in cars and trucks. That's much more aggressive a growth plan for the development of wind energy than envisioned by the Department of Energy, which doesn't expect the USA to be getting 20% of its total energy needs from wind until at least 2030.
Pickens foresees as many as a third of the vehicles running on natural gas within only a few years. Julius Pretterebner, director of the Global Oil Group at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, says getting 15% to 20% of the USA's cars to run on natural gas — in some cases, in mixtures with other fuels in dual-fuel vehicles — by 2020 would be an outstanding achievement, and doing that will require federal support to expand the necessary infrastructure.
Powering vehicles with compressed or liquefied natural gas, CNG or LNG, has been Pickens' pet project since the late 1980s.Yet the concept has been very slow to catch on.
Distribution is a major problem. CNG drivers can, like Pickens, install inexpensive equipment to fill up at their homes. But with fewer than 800 natural gas filling stations around the USA, drivers can't count on being able to fill up wherever they go. So, for the most part, CNG, or LNG, has remained limited to fleet operators, such as local bus companies or big-city police departments.
And that's where David Friedman, research director in the vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says most natural-gas-powered vehicles will continue to be operated because of the distribution problem, the lack of vehicles made specifically to run on CNG, and the cost of converting conventional vehicles to run on CNG.
"I honestly think (natural gas') role will be in medium- to heavy-duty vehicles and fleets — and as a stepping stone to hydrogen fuel-cell-powered vehicles in the future," Friedman says. Only one car, a version of the Honda Civic, is available from the factory ready for CNG fuel, he says, and only at a significant premium over the price of a conventionally fueled version.
If you build it …
Pickens aims to shout down the skeptics by taking his case to the people via his TV ad campaign. If the nation is to break its addiction to foreign oil, a network of CNG stations could be built along interstates and in major cities for a relatively small investment, he says. Some gasoline retailers have told him they would add CNG pumps to their stations once they're certain there'll be enough vehicles capable of running on natural gas to justify costs.
Washington, Pickens adds, can encourage the move to natural-gas-powered vehicles by providing modest economic incentives for fuel retailers to invest in CNG pumps at their stations, for automakers to build CNG-powered cars and for individuals to convert their existing vehicles to CNG use. And it should continue to provide tax incentives for another 10 years to encourage wind energy's rapid development as part of an overall plan to wean the nation from foreign oil, he says.
"It certainly would be cheaper than what they're doing already for nuclear," Pickens adds. But he's also in favor of developing more nuclear energy, and every form of alternative energy to reduce oil imports. "Try everything. Do everything. Nuclear. Biomass. Coal. Solar. You name it. I support them all," he says. "But there's only one energy source that can dramatically reduce the amount of oil we have to import each year, and that's (natural) gas."
Pickens is an outspoken believer in the so-called peak oil theory that holds that maximum world production has peaked at about 85 million barrels a day — vs. current demand of about 86 million barrels a day — and will never rise much above that even with lots of new drilling and production.
"Even people who continue driving gasoline-powered cars and trucks will benefit" from his plan, he says.
Critics could easily accuse Pickens of advocating a major new public policy initiative that will line his own pockets. He is, after all, a big player in both the wind power and natural gas businesses. Pickens says while his hedge fund will earn money for its investors, earning more money personally is meaningless: "I'm 80 years old and have $4 billion. I don't need any more money."
He's more concerned that his efforts to make reducing foreign oil dependency the No. 1 issue on the national agenda will be dismissed by the public and, therefore, by Washington. So he says he's carefully steering his plan clear of partisan bickering.
He's already enlisted an unlikely supporter: the Sierra Club. "I will be in the front row of the chorus cheering" him on, says Carl Pope, its executive director, who flew with Pickens to Sweetwater.
Pope sees wind and solar energy as inexpensive sources of power that, along with other non-carbon forms, can be pooled to greatly reduce the need for oil- and coal-fired electric-generating plants.
"When it's cloudy in Dallas and the wind's not blowing in Sweetwater, but the sun's blazing in the (Western) deserts, solar energy can run all those air conditioners in Dallas. When it's windy in Sweetwater and cloudy in the desert, wind energy from Sweetwater can heat homes in Chicago.
"Mr. Pickens and I probably don't see eye-to-eye on some other matters," Pope concedes. "But he's right on this one."
Setting goals, clearing roadblocks
Washington's role, Pope said, should be in setting the goal and clearing roadblocks such as the patchwork of state, regional and federal regulations that block the creation of a true national grid that can shift electricity from anywhere in the country to anywhere that it's needed.
Getting support from groups and people not ordinarily aligned with his conservative political views is important to Pickens. A lifelong Republican, he'll vote for McCain. But he's not involved with McCain's campaign, largely to keep his plan from being dismissed as mere campaign rhetoric.
"This has to be a bipartisan effort," says the man who four years ago offered $1 million to anyone who could disprove the charges made against Democrat nomine Sen. John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
"This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats," Pickens says. "This is about saving our country from the ruination of spending $700 billion a year on oil imports. Ninety days after the oil hits our shores, it's all burned up, and we've got nothing to show for it. But they (foreign oil producers) still have our money. It's killing our economy."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-08-t-boone-pickens-plan-wind-energy_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)