Breaking the habit

[Political Waves]

First off, another birthday -- Happy 88th, Helen Thomas!

The House Republicans continued their Kabuki event in a vacant Congress yesterday, calling on the Prez for a special session to vote up/down on drilling -- Dubby said no, as he jumped on gas-guzzling Air Force One and began his Olympic triumphant, carrying the American torch to the heart of communist China for ... ummm ... big oil and growingly-similar policing methods, I guess; he sure ain't interested in human rights -- says it's "hard to tell" if there's been any improvement [nobody briefed him on Tibet or Darfur, I s'pose.] And he isn't scheduled to bring up the subject. Wonder if he'll take time to do some fund-raising with the Wal-Mart exec's?

When Hillary and McCain stumped for a Gas Tax Holiday, it was a gimmick -- off-shore drilling is another such; both are "psychological relief." I'm not sure our psyche's deserve such a boon -- we've already put off the inevitable until we're a lot like Sigourney Weaver in Alien, nose to nose with a drooling, dripping bitch of an emergency. We did it to ourselves because we can't face our own habitual behavior -- there are a couple of excellent reads on that, below. But rest assured ... bitch slap coming up, kids.

We need to get smart now, bite the bullet that's been rolling around inside our cheek for the last thirty years, instead of complacent and secure in our dominance of resources. And snarled up in the topic of energy prices is the falling dollar ... worth about half of what it was a few years ago; if you're wondering why groceries are soaring, that's part of it, there -- Mickey D's is changing their dollar menu to a dollar+ some; I've noted the average add-on in the Dollar stores as anywhere between 25 and 35 cents. Up by a third, then in a very unscientific but on-the-ground and in-face analysis.

Obama gave us a nuanced and detailed energy plan yesterday -- WHAT A RELIEF to hear a leader ... ANY leader ... talk about doing things differently. He's taking heat now, on this presumed arrogance -- actually acting all presidential and like that. Imagine, America! A smart, sober and reflective president ... that's a paradigm shift, right there; we'll have to break that old habit of expecting nothing and receiving same. Think we can do it? Yes, we can!

Cheap oil isn't the answer to our problems, of course -- neither is breaking our wings by trying to sustain the "lifestyle" Poppy Bush refused to compromise; each of these reads give us the overview of our problems and some link to sites with suggestions -- they're worth your time today. And don't forget to check your tires!

Jude


 
Obama Delivers a Real Energy Plan for America: Efficiency Now, 10% Renewables  2012, One Million Plug-ins by 2015
Joseph Romm, HuffPo
August 4, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/obama-delivers-a-real-ene_b_116751.html

Senator Barack Obama has fulfilled the promise of his earlier climate plan with a detailed and comprehensive "New Energy for America" plan.

This is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party. By comparison, the plan of John "Nothing but Nukes" McCain is a joke, with nothing on energy efficiency and a pointless $300 million battery prize and long-standing opposition to renewable energy. In contrast, Obama's plan has real depth and breath:

Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per each year while protecting the financial future of domestic automakers....

Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015: As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in advanced vehicles, including combined plug‐in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas... [more details below]

Partner with Domestic Automakers: Obama will also provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that the new fuel‐efficient cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas.

Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles

Develop the Next Generation of Sustainable Biofuels and Infrastructure

Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: ... The standard requires fuels suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years.

This is the only way to jumpstart an end to our addiction to oil in a climate friendly way. Indeed, an accelerated transition to plug-in hybrids and electric cars -- a core climate solution-- must be the cornerstone of any serious effort to dramatically reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (see "Why electricity is the only alternative fuel that can lead to energy independence").
That is the crucial litmus test for any presidential candidate's energy independence or clean transportation policy.

As for the test of a candidate's grasp of electricity policy, energy efficiency is obviously The only cheap power left and a limitless resource and THE core climate solution. Obama understands energy efficiency in a way few other major politicians do, as his plan makes clear:

Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source--Energy Efficiency: Barack Obama will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal--to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from DOE's projected levels by 2020. Implementing this program will save consumers a total of $130 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030, and create jobs. A portion of this goal would be met by setting annual demand reduction targets that utilities would need to meet.

Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.

Overhaul Federal Efficiency Standards: The current Department of Energy has missed 34 deadlines for setting updated appliance efficiency standards....

Reduce Federal Energy Consumption: ... He will make the federal government a leader in the green building market, achieving a 40 percent increase in efficiency in all new federal buildings within five years and ensuring that all new federal buildings are zero‐emissions by 2025. He will invest in cost‐effective retrofits to achieve a 25 percent increase in efficiency of existing federal buildings within 5 years.

Invest in a Smart Grid: ... Obama will pursue a major investment in our national utility grid using smart metering, distributed storage and other advanced technologies to accommodate 21st century energy requirements: greatly improved electric grid reliability and security, a tremendous increase in renewable generation and greater customer choice and energy affordability.

Weatherize One Million Homes Annually....

Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities....

Flip Incentives to Energy Utilities: An Obama administration will "flip" incentives to utility companies by: requiring states to conduct proceedings to implement incentive changes; and offering them targeted technical assistance. These measures will benefit utilities for improving energy efficiency, rather than just from supporting higher energy consumption. This "regulatory equity" starts with the decoupling of profits from increased energy usage, which will incentivize utilities to partner with consumers and the federal and state governments to reduce monthly energy bills for families and businesses. The federal government under an Obama administration will play an important and positive role in flipping the profit model for the utility sector so that shareholder profit is based on reliability and performance as opposed to total production.

Finally, a presidential nominee that really gets it (see "Energy efficiency, Part 4: How does California do it so consistently and cost-effectively?").

The proposal has lots of other details on short-term solutions and promoting the supply of domestic energy. But let me focus on his low-carbon electricity supply plan:

Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012 [and 25 percent by 2025]. Barack Obama will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012. Many states are already well on their way to achieving statewide goals and it's time for the federal government to provide leadership for the entire country to support these new industries. This national requirement will spur significant private sector investment in renewable sources of energy and create thousands of new American jobs, especially in rural areas. And Obama will also extend the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for 5 years to encourage the production of renewable energy.

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology....

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: ... It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.... As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.

He also repeats his climate pledge and his jobs pledge:

Implement an economy‐wide cap‐and‐trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Invest In A Clean Energy Economy and Help Create 5 Million New Green Jobs. Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years...

Finally, back to the details of the plug-in hybrid proposal:

As president, Obama will continue this leadership by investing in advanced vehicle technology with a specific focus on R&D in advanced battery technology. The increased federal funding will leverage private sector funds and support our domestic automakers to bring plug‐in hybrids and other advanced vehicles to American consumers. Obama will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits. And to help create a market and show government leadership in purchasing highly efficient cars, an Obama administration will commit to:

Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug‐ins as security permits; and

Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug‐in hybrids or all‐electric by 2012.

This is an aggressive, achievable, and most important of all, a necessary energy plan. Kudos to Senator Obama and his energy team. Maybe he is The One. ++


The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke
MICHAEL GRUNWALD, Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

 
How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge. But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis ― the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

The RNC is trying to make the tire gauge a symbol of unseriousness, as if only the fatuous believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle. The energy guru Amory Lovins has shown that investment in "nega-watts" ― reduced electricity use through efficiency improvements ― is much more cost-effective than investment in new megawatts, and the same is clearly true of nega-barrels. It might not fit the worldviews of right-wingers who deny the existence of global warming and insist that reducing emissions would destroy our economy, or of left-wing Earth-firsters who insist that maintaining our creature comforts would destroy the world, but there's a lot of simple things we can do on the demand side before we start rushing to ratchet up supply.

We can use those twisty carbon fluorescent lightbulbs. We can unplug our televisions, computers and phone chargers when we're not using them. We can seal our windows, install more insulation and adjust our thermostats so that we waste less heat and air-conditioning. We can use more-efficient appliances, build more-efficient homes and drive more-efficient cars, preferably with government assistance. And, yes, we can inflate our tires and tune our engines, as Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida have urged, apparently without consulting the RNC. While we're at it, we can cut down on idling, which can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cut down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, which can increase mileage as much as 20%.

And that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are other ways to reduce demand for oil ― more public transportation, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more recycling, less exurban sprawl, fewer unnecessary car trips, buying less stuff and eating less meat ― that would require at least some lifestyle changes. But things like tire gauges can reduce gas bills and carbon emissions now, with little pain and at little cost and without the ecological problems and oil-addiction problems associated with offshore drilling. These are the proverbial win-win-win solutions, reducing the pain of $100 trips to the gas station by reducing trips to the gas station. And Americans are already starting to adopt them, ditching SUVs, buying hybrids, reducing overall gas consumption. It's hard to see why anyone who isn't affiliated with the oil industry would object to them.

Of course, in recent years, the Republican Party has been affiliated with the oil industry. It was the oilman Dick Cheney who dismissed conservation as a mere sign of "personal virtue," not a basis for energy policy. It was the oilman George W. Bush who resisted efforts to regulate carbon emissions. And most congressional Republicans have been even more reliable water carriers for the industry's interests.

John McCain has been a notable exception. He is not an oilman; he has pushed to regulate carbon emissions; and he opposed Bush's pork-stuffed energy bill, which Obama supported. He also opposed efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and until recently opposed new offshore drilling. But now that gas prices have spiked, McCain is running for President on a drill-first platform, and polls suggest that most Americans agree with him. It's sad to see his campaign adopting the politics of the tire gauge, promoting the fallacy that Americans are powerless to address their own energy problems. Because the truth is: Yes, we can. We already are. ++


Yes Conservatives, Inflated Tires Beats Coastal Drilling
Bill Scher, HuffPo
August 4, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/yes-conservatives-inflate_b_116791.html

 
The latest conservative lie -- regarding Sen. Barack Obama and fuel efficiency -- actually has a great amount of truth to it.

On Thursday, conservative radio host Sean Hannity claimed Obama said, "All you need to do is inflate your tires. That's all you need to do. If every American would join in this effort, of inflating one's tires, then it's all going to be fine. And we can still import 70% of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Just keep those tires inflated."

Conservatives -- lovers of childish mockery over substantive ideas -- later today are apparently planning to distribute tire gauges at an Obama energy event.

And earlier today on MSNBC's Morning Joe, conservative hack economist (who does not hold an economics degree) Larry Kudlow, a very loud advocate of coastal drilling, said of Obama's comments about tires, "That's not really much of a policy."

No, it's not. That was Obama's point.

Obama's actual comment last week was:

--...we could save all the oil they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.

He was decidedly not saying "all you need to do" is inflate your ties, or "my entire energy policy" is inflating your tires.

(Obama has a much larger energy plan -- articulated in a sweeping speech today -- centered on investment in renewable energy and fuel efficiency technology.

Similarly, it would not be fair to say Sen. John McCain's "entire" energy policy is coastal drilling, when he is also advocating loosening regulations on nuclear power and a contest to promote battery technology.)

Obama was observing that coastal drilling would save us so little oil and so little money even twenty years from now, that you can actually save more money immediately by doing "simple things" such as keeping your tires properly inflated.

Where did he get that crazy idea? From George Bush's Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency. (hat tip: Get Energy Smart! Now!)

Their joint site fueleconomy.gov is loaded with fuel-saving, money-saving tips.

Keep your tires properly inflated, for example, and you can save up to 12 cents a gallon.

Compare that immediate savings from that single tip, with what coastal and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling combined would get you two decades from now: 6 cents a gallon.

And that's being generous, because Bush's Energy Department says we can't expect any impact on prices from coastal drilling until the year 2030.

In their knee-jerk mockery, conservatives are flying closer to the truth then they intend to.

Inflating your ties does not amount to an energy policy. It's just more of a policy than coastal drilling, since unlike drilling for a tiny amount of oil, it would at least save us some money now.

A real energy policy would provide us consumers with a energy choice besides buying huge amounts of increasingly expensive oil. Maybe if conservative Senators stopped filibustering every proposal that would help provide such choices, and force their Big Oil donors to face some competition, we could get somewhere.


We can't drive 55...or 65
JOHN M. CRISP, Capital Hill Blue
August 5, 2008
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/10108

In 1984, I split the driving with a friend on a trip from north Minnesota to south Texas, some 1,500 miles. He cruised between 75 and 80 mph, with a watchful eye on the rearview mirror and on the radar detector.

When it was my turn, I carefully held the speedometer on 55 mph, in observance of the national maximum speed law, which was put into effect in 1974 in response to the Arab oil embargo. After 10 minutes with me behind the wheel, my friend would begin to fidget. I didn't drive much on that trip.

Call me a geek, but I was a victim of my upbringing. My father was a strict observer of the 55 mph speed limit, as well as all other laws; it wouldn't have occurred to him to cheat on his taxes, and he was so honest that he would drive across town to return a dollar to a merchant who had accidentally undercharged him.

Some people would call this compulsive rigidity, but I prefer to think of it as
scrupulous homegrown integrity that emerged from a mix of a simple childhood on a Texas farm and the shared privations of the Depression and World War II, with more than a dash of old-time religion thrown in.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that this sort of uncompromising allegiance to the rule of law, as well as the willingness to sacrifice one's own desires in service to the community, isn't as common today as it was in my father's generation. If so, Virginia Sen. John Warner's recent suggestion that the country revisit the idea of a national speed limit isn't likely to get very far. In fact, in spite of diminishing oil supplies, the high price of gas, and all the evils attendant to our reliance on foreign oil, the country doesn't appear to be in a mood to consider something as sensible as lowering the speed limit.

I don't intend to make a case for the 55 mph speed limit, but it did have its virtues. Critics argue that it didn't save as much oil or as many lives as its proponents promised. But they often make the additional objection that the 55 mph speed limit was widely violated. So how do we know how much oil or how many lives it might have saved if more Americans had been as conscientious as my father in their respect to the law?

In any case, basic physics provides us with several incontrovertible facts: slower speeds require less energy and, therefore, less gas. And when objects guided by rational thought -- like cars -- move more slowly, they are less likely to collide. And when they do collide, the damage is less severe. This translates into saved gas and saved lives. Always.

But I suspect our objections to a lower speed limit are more emotional than rational, and in spite of our bad energy situation and the deaths of about 120 people every day in car accidents -- that's every single day -- the citizenry is unlikely to accept a 55 mph speed limit. And I don't suggest it.

But consider the recommendations of the American Trucking Associations, which has represented the interests of professional truckers and trucking associations -- real driving experts -- for more than 70 years. The ATA supports the enactment of a national speed limit of 65 mph for all vehicles and the requirement that all trucks be equipped with governors that limit their speeds to 68 mph.

The ATA argues that these measures would reduce diesel consumption by at least 27 percent and save 2.8 billion gallons over the next decade, as well as 31 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. When cars are factored in, the savings are much, much greater in gas and, I suspect, in lives.

So if Americans can't tolerate 55 mph, how about 65? It's not much of a sacrifice.

But if we do something as reasonable and patriotic as this, enforcement is essential. The real killer is the speed differential between law-abiders and speeders, so let's hit the speeders hard and use their fines to help finance research into nonhydrocarbon solutions to our energy dilemma. ++


Beware of Cheap Oil
Matthew Yeomans, Slate
Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2008
http://www.slate.com/id/2196757/

Oil plummets and America rejoices! Right? Well, not quite. Certainly crude prices seem to be headed south, closing around $120 on Monday and raising the prospect of pump prices dropping below $4 a gallon. But as Fortune.com makes clear, "falling oil prices also suggest that the recession the U.S. has so far avoided is well on its way."

There's plenty of Texas tea-leaf reading taking place to divine all the reasons for oil's current fall, be it a boost in Saudi production, relief that tropical storm Edouard is no hurricane and, intriguingly, the Financial Times' suggestion that Beijing may have been stockpiling oil ahead of the Olympics. The New York Times points to less fickle Chinese behavior―a very real economic slowdown (some say 2 percent) in the world's premier economic driver...

But before you fire up the F-150 that's been sitting neglected in the driveway, remember that what goes down could always go back up. Even as some economists foresee a return to double digit crude prices, one analyst cautions Fortune.com that, "By the end of the third quarter, there's a good chance oil could be below $100 a barrel, and a good chance it could be above $150." Guess we'll have to see what the futures hold. ++


The Price of Oil, Tripled? An Attack on Iran Could Make It Happen
A war with Iran would ruin our economy and finally kill off our weakened, anemic democracy.
Chris Hedges, Truthdig
http://www.alternet.org/audits/93882/the_price_of_oil%2C_tripled_an_attack_on_iran_could_make_it_happen/

The Heart of the Economic Mess
Robert B. Reich, Alternet
August 4, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/93729/the_heart_of_the_economic_mess/

Most Americans can no longer maintain their standard of living. And the core problem isn't the housing crisis or rising oil and food prices.

The Federal Reserve Board's "beige book" for June and July offers a clear explanation for why the economy has slowed to a crawl. It shows American consumers cutting way back on their purchases of everything from food to cars, appliances and name-brand products. As they do so, employers inevitably are cutting back on the hours they need people to work for them, thereby contributing to a downward spiral.

The normal remedies for economic downturns are necessary. But even an adequate stimulus package will offer only temporary relief this time, because this isn't a normal downturn. The problem lies deeper. Most Americans can no longer maintain their standard of living. The only lasting remedy is to improve their standard of living by widening the circle of prosperity.

The heart of the matter isn't the collapse in housing prices or even the frenetic rise in oil and food prices. These are contributing to the mess, but they are not creating it directly. The basic reality is this: For most Americans, earnings have not kept up with the cost of living. This is not a new phenomenon, but it has finally caught up with the pocketbooks of average people. If you look at the earnings of nongovernment workers, especially the hourly workers who comprise 80 percent of the work force, you'll find they are barely higher than they were in the mid-1970s, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Per-person productivity has grown considerably since then, but most Americans have not reaped the benefits of those productivity gains. They've gone largely to the top.

Inequality on this scale is bad for many reasons, but it is also bad for the economy. The wealthy devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they're rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, the very wealthy are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.

This underlying earnings problem has been masked for years as middle- and lower-income Americans found means to live beyond their paychecks. But they have now run out of such coping mechanisms. As I've noted elsewhere, the first coping mechanism was to send more women into paid work. Most women streamed into the work force in the 1970s less because new professional opportunities opened up to them than because they had to prop up family incomes. The percentage of American working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970, to more than 70 percent. But there's a limit to how many mothers can maintain paying jobs.

So Americans turned to a second way of spending beyond their hourly wages: They worked more hours. The typical American now works more each year than he or she did three decades ago. Americans became veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.

But there's also a limit to how many hours Americans can put into work, so Americans turned to a third coping mechanism: They began to borrow. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster from 2002 to 2006, they turned their homes into piggy banks by refinancing home mortgages and taking out home-equity loans. But this third strategy also had a built-in limit. And now, with the bursting of the housing bubble, the piggy banks are closing.

Americans are reaching the end of their ability to borrow, and lenders have reached the end of their capacity to lend. Credit-card debt, meanwhile, has reached dangerous proportions. Banks are now pulling back.

As a result, typical Americans have run out of coping mechanisms to keep up their standard of living. That means there's not enough purchasing power in the economy to buy all the goods and services it's producing. We're finally reaping the whirlwind of widening inequality and ever-more-concentrated wealth.

The only way to keep the economy going over the long run is to increase the real earnings of middle-class and lower-middle-class Americans. The answer is not to protect jobs through trade protection -- that would only drive up the prices of everything purchased from abroad. Most routine jobs are being automated anyway. Nor is the answer to give tax breaks to the very wealthy and to giant corporations in the hope they will trickle down to everyone else. We've tried that, and it hasn't worked. Nothing has trickled down.

Rather, the long-term answer is for us to invest in the productivity of our working people -- enabling families to afford health insurance and have access to good schools and higher education -- while also rebuilding our infrastructure and investing in the clean energy technologies of the future. We must also adopt progressive taxes at the federal, state and local levels. In other words, we must rebuild the American economy from the bottom up. It cannot be rebuilt from the
top down. ++

 

 

http://www.politicalwaves.net

 

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was."
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.