Too bad went can't elect him to a 3rd term. He sure deserves it.

President Bush is scoring legislative win after legislative win. Let’s take a look at some recent successes in the last month.


Picks Supreme Supreme Court Nominee. Dems mouths drap open.


Bush-backed energy bill passes House. Senate to follow. Bush to sign.


Bush-backed $286.4 billion highway and transit bill will pass the House soon creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.


Bush-backed Central American Free Trade Agreement passes House.


Budget deficit is almost $100 billion smaller than expected.


Economy is growing rapidly, matching Clinton’s numbers.


European relations are on the mend. Frenchies and Germans are kissing butt again.


North Korea is back at six-nation talks on ending its nuclear program. Remember Kerry wanted us to go it alone.


China revalues its currency making US more competitive.
These are indeed signs of outstanding leadership on the part of our President. ~ Greatest President Ever ~

And let's not forget...

Bush's latest stroke of genius: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This is a pact between the U.S., China, India, Japan, Australia, and South Korea. Basically a technology transfer agreement that allows the U.S., Japan and Australia to share pollution control technology with all member countries contributing to a fund to help implement the technologies created.

Will Bush be remembered as the Man who Saved the Planet? Could be!

Pure Genius.

I don't know why, but I don't particularly care for CAFTA...

These are indeed signs of outstanding leadership on the part of our President. ~ Greatest President Ever ~




I'll settle for Greatest President Since Reagan.

I'll settle for Greatest President Since Reagan.

Let's call it a two way tie for "Best President Ever": :Beer

I don't know why, but I don't particularly care for CAFTA...The vote showed the Dems are racist and they truly don't care for the little man.

The vote showed the Dems are racist and they truly don't care for the little man.


Wait!!! Are you telling me that libs only use their influence in the minority communities to gain support to further their socialist agenda and not to actually help the people in the community to further themselves in the larger community of America??? I DON"T BELIEVE IT! Are you also telling me that they feed lies to minorities and the poor in particular about the republican party so that they are scared into supporting this socialist agenda?? I CAN"T BELIEVE THAT EITHER!! And certainly my friend you aren't telling me that libs, while trying to further their socialist agenda, are trying to make all these same people dependent on the government so that they will have no choice but to vote against republicans who would wish let people live their lives, take responsibility, and not give these handouts, effectively wanting to take away all the programs that these people are becoming depepndent on?? Now that my friend is the last straw! I will have no more of these lies!!


Wait a second, oh yeah, nevermind MonsterMark, you were right. My bad dude.

Can someone refresh my memory? What was just voted on in Congress that John Kerry missed so tht he could ride in a car behind Lance Armstong in the Tour de France?? Cafta, wasn't it?

Bryan,
All I can say is "what a bunch of bull:q:q:q:q".
E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, July 27 - With Congress poised for a final vote on the energy bill, the Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision Tuesday to delay the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy.

But a copy of the report, embargoed for publication Wednesday, was sent to The New York Times by a member of the E.P.A. communications staff just minutes before the decision was made to delay it until next week. The contents of the report show that loopholes in American fuel economy regulations have allowed automakers to produce cars and trucks that are significantly less fuel-efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's.

Releasing the report this week would have been inopportune for the Bush administration, its critics said, because it would have come on the eve of a final vote in Congress on energy legislation six years in the making. The bill, as it stands, largely ignores auto mileage regulations.

The executive summary of the copy of the report obtained by The Times acknowledges that "fuel economy is directly related to energy security," because consumer cars and trucks account for about 40 percent of the nation's oil consumption. But trends highlighted in the report show that carmakers are not making progress in improving fuel economy, and environmentalists say the energy bill will do little to prod them.

"Something's fishy when the Bush administration delays a report showing no improvement in fuel economy until after passage of their energy bill, which fails to improve fuel economy," said Daniel Becker, the Sierra Club's top global warming strategist. "It's disturbing that despite high gas prices, an oil war and growing concern about global warming pollution, most automakers are failing to improve fuel economy."

Eryn Witcher, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said the timing of the release of the report had nothing to do with the energy bill deliberations.

"We are committed to sharing our scientific studies with the public in the most comprehensive and understandable format possible," she said. "Issue experts are reviewing the fuel economy data and we look forward to providing a summary of the information next week."

Some of what the report says reaffirms what has long been known. Leaps in engine technology over the last couple of decades have been mostly used to make cars faster, not more fuel-efficient, and the rise of sport utility vehicles and S.U.V.-like pickup trucks has actually sapped efficiency. The average 2004 model car or truck got 20.8 miles per gallon, about 6 percent less than the 22.1 m.p.g. of the average new vehicle sold in the late 1980's, according to the report.

At the same time, while General Motors and the Ford Motor Company are the most common targets of environmental groups, the E.P.A. report shows that several foreign automakers have had the sharpest declines in recent fuel economy performance as they move aggressively into the truck market.

The average 2004 model sold by Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen was at least a half-mile a gallon less fuel-efficient than in the previous model year, a sharp drop.

"It's appalling that Nissan, V.W. and Hyundai are accelerating in reverse," Mr. Becker said.

Kyle Bazemore, a Nissan spokesman, said the company's new large pickup truck, the Titan, and new large S.U.V.'s, like the Armada, clearly affected its overall results.

"In '03, we didn't have the Titan and Armada," he said. "We've entered into new markets, but we feel we are doing it responsibly."

John Krafcik, vice president of product development and corporate strategy at Hyundai, pointed out that his company sells relatively few S.U.V.'s but has recently increased its offerings. "Car by car, we're improving fuel economy on every model in our range," he said. "That's a more appropriate way to look at it."

David Friedman, a research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, disagreed.

"The 8.5 million barrels a day that American cars and trucks use have to do with the vehicles on the road, not the model-by-model comparisons," he said. "What matters to our oil consumption is the fuel economy of the fleet on the road."

Of the eight major automakers examined in the report, only G.M., Toyota and Honda showed increases in fuel efficiency in the 2004 model year, the most recent year for which hard sales data is available. Ford had the lowest mileage of the group. Honda, which does not sell the heaviest kinds of trucks, had the best overall mileage.

Some foreign companies do not even trouble themselves to follow fuel economy regulations. BMW, in fact, has paid more than $70 million in fines since the 2000 model year for noncompliance. The company has argued that American fuel regulations, which are taken as an average over a company's entire fleet, put luxury makers at a disadvantage.

"We sell the ultimate driving machine and people expect us to offer them the kind of BMW vehicles they really want to drive," said Dave Buchko, a spokesman.

Backers of the energy bill have said it will broadly change the nation's energy policy.

Representative Joe L. Barton, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said this week that "it is a darn good bill, and it is going to help this country, and the sooner we get it done, the better."

Environmentalists disagree.

"It effectively does nothing to cut our dependence on oil," Mr. Friedman said.

While the proposed bill, as it stands, does offer limited tax credits for hybrid electric cars and advanced diesels, environmental groups object to extending mileage credits for vehicles that can be filled up with an ethanol blend instead of gasoline; many consumers who purchase such vehicles are not even aware of the feature.

The E.P.A. report illustrates what has happened as the industry has poured resources into S.U.V.'s, minivans and family-oriented pickup trucks, vehicle types with less stringent fuel economy requirements than cars. The average new vehicle weight has risen to about 4,000 pounds today, from about 3,200 in the early 1980's. At the same time, the horsepower of an average engine has roughly doubled over two decades, trimming four seconds from the time it takes for the average vehicle to accelerate from zero to 60.


Energy Tax Breaks Total $14.5 Billion
Some Lawmakers Wanted More Support for Efficiency, Alternative Sources

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 28, 2005; Page A04

Congressional negotiators completed work yesterday on a $14.5 billion package of tax breaks as part of a major energy bill that provides far less support for alternative energy and efficiency than many lawmakers had urged.

The tax package -- negotiated behind closed doors by lawmakers -- would award 58 percentof the total benefit over 10 years to traditional energy industries, including oil, natural gas, coal, electric utilities and nuclear power. About 36 percent of the total would go for renewable sources of energy, energy efficiency and cleaner-burning vehicles. The Senate had sought considerably more in tax incentives for conservation and alternative sources of energy in its version of the energy bill approved last month.

Politics Trivia
Sen. Robert C. Byrd has held public office for more than 50 years. Who was president the last time the senator from West Virginia won an election with less than 60 percent of the vote?

Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter

Both chambers are expected to approve the energy bill this week after years of failed attempts. Lawmakers who negotiated the tax provisions -- melding vastly different packages approved by the House and the Senate -- said the legislation would benefit consumers by encouraging more supplies and developing cleaner-burning forms of energy.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, described the tax breaks as "well balanced among renewable energy, conservation and traditional energy sources" and said, "Renewable energy and conservation got a very big slice of the pie." Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), a member of the Finance Committee, said he wanted to see more spent on alternative energy and conservation.

Energy providers lobbied heavily for the tax provisions, and many were thrilled with the results. But taxpayer advocates and environmental groups complained that the bill would distribute billions in tax dollars to highly profitable companies that do not need government assistance at a time of soaring energy costs.

"They've created a complicated scheme of making sure a lot of different profitable energy industries are going to make off like bandits," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense. He said the tax breaks help companies "pad their bottom line, but it doesn't really create new behavior in the energy industry."

The Bush administration had sought a $6.7 billion tax package, but the Joint Committee on Taxation said the 10-year net cost would be $11.5 billion. The bill would generate an estimated $3 billion in revenue to partly offset the $14.5 billion in tax breaks.

Despite the costs, White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said President Bush supports the energy bill, which he has sought passage of since he took office in 2001. "While we may not agree with every last detail, this is a really good bill that's good for consumers, good for business and good for the environment," Perino said.

Lawmakers said the tax breaks would help revive the nuclear industry and spur the development of cleaner-burning coal plants.

The measure includes tax breaks for the production of nuclear energy and the production of energy from alternative sources such as wind, biomass and geothermal means.

For the oil industry, the legislation would allow some costs associated with exploration to be deducted over a shorter period and would provide tax benefits when oil and gas production is delayed and a lease is extended.

In an effort to encourage more refining capacity, the legislation would grant tax breaks to expand capacity. Analysts have said that a lack of refining capacity is a factor helping to push up gasoline prices.

The measure would allow utilities less time to deduct the cost of natural gas distribution lines that connect homes and neighborhoods. The industry said the measure would encourage more rapid expansion of pipelines to newly built communities and the replacement of lines that are aging.

In an effort to encourage the expansion of the electrical grid, the bill would allow more rapid depreciation of assets used in the transmission and distribution of electricity.

The bill also includes tax breaks for the purchase of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles and for improving the energy efficiency of homes and commercial buildings.

As to the rest of your points:
CAFTA will be a bigger disaster to the working man than NAFTA was.
Bragging that the deficit is 100 Billion less than expected when we've been running record deficits almost since Shrub has been in office is ludicrous.
Shrub wanted less money spent on the highway bill.
Roberts nomination is payback for his part in the 2000 election giveaway to Shrub.
Oh, and some Repugs snuck another 1.5 billion in giveaways into the energy bill at the last minute. Who benefited? Halliburton.
This is the respectability that Shrub was bringing to the White House?
Bull:q:q:q:q

And let's not forget...

Bush's latest stroke of genius: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This is a pact between the U.S., China, India, Japan, Australia, and South Korea. Basically a technology transfer agreement that allows the U.S., Japan and Australia to share pollution control technology with all member countries contributing to a fund to help implement the technologies created.

Will Bush be remembered as the Man who Saved the Planet? Could be!

This is a limp dick, half assed attempt to make it look like he is actually doing something on the issue. Man who saved the planet? Dude, you really do need help!!! Please, go see a Shrink!!!


Bush aide altered climate reports
From Roland Watson in Washington
Philip Cooney, a White House official who had no scientific training, doctored official warnings on climate change, inserting words to qualify evidence, and deleting paragraphs which he considered to be speculative
FRESH evidence of White House unwillingness to accept a link between greenhouse gases and global warming emerged yesterday with leaked memos showing that a senior Bush aide consistently watered down official scientific warnings.

Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality, intervened to blur the conclusions of government scientists before they were published.

Mr Cooney not only lacks any scientific training but was a former lobbyist with the oil industry’s largest trade group before he entered the White House in 2001.

Sometimes his editing consisted of inserting words such as “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties” to sow doubt about the assertions of scientists.

At other times his brush was broader. For example, in the draft text of a November 2002 policy paper, Mr Cooney deleted a paragraph which gave warning that melting glaciers would change flood patterns and threaten native populations because the assertion was “straying from research in speculative findings/musings”.

The leak, to The New York Times, is at least the third time in the past four years that the White House has been caught meddling with scientific findings. It came a day after President Bush, after talks with Tony Blair, ducked a direct question about whether he believed climate change was man-made. The Prime Minister is striving to clinch a post- Kyoto deal on climate change, to include the US, India and China, the world’s biggest polluters, when leaders of the richest seven nations, and Russia, meet for the G8 summit at Gleneagles next month.

But Mr Bush gave little hint when he met the Prime Minister at the White House on Tuesday that he is prepared to loosen his objections to binding commitments on the US. He said that America was spending more than any other country on research into alternative fuels. But he said that it was acting chiefly out of economic and national security concerns. And he pointedly failed to accept the link between greenhouse gases and global warming. The jury was still out as far as the White House was concerned, he said. “We want to know more about it. It’s easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it.”

He has previously committed his Administration to slowing the growth of harmful emissions, but his targets are voluntary. Such a standpoint is reflected in Mr Cooney’s neat, meticulous handwritten annotations that litter Administration environmental papers.

In one October 2002 policy paper, Our Changing Planet, Mr Cooney added the word “extremely” to the sentence: “The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.”

In the same paper, he made subtle changes to one sentence with the effect that its meaning was altered significantly. The original, written by government scientists and approved by their supervisors, stated: “Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.”

After Mr Cooney’s intervention, it read: “Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.” Mr Cooney’s editing fits a pattern. In 2002 the Administration published its annual report on air pollution trends without any section on global warming, and in 2003 the White House intervened to cut a section from an Environmental Protection Agency report which described the risks from rising global temperatures, replacing them with a few non-committal paragraphs.

Bush aide altered climate reports [snip]
Philip Cooney, a White House official who had no scientific training, doctored official warnings on climate change, inserting words to qualify evidence, and deleting paragraphs which he considered to be speculative

Sometimes his editing consisted of inserting words such as “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties” to sow doubt about the assertions of scientists.

At other times his brush was broader. For example, in the draft text of a November 2002 policy paper, Mr Cooney deleted a paragraph which gave warning that melting glaciers would change flood patterns and threaten native populations because the assertion was “straying from research in speculative findings/musings”.

Oh horror of horrors. A guy from the Bush administration takes some of the rantings from the left, which are speculative at best, (hell, scientists can't even predict what the weather will be tomorrow) and modifies the language used to be more mainstream. Nothing in this 'article' has been proven so why such 'chicken little' talk? Why? Because it serves the left and the environmentalist movement. That's why! When something concrete comes out, I'll be pissed too if the government 'waters' it down. Till then, I'll just enjoy.

CAFTA will be a bigger disaster to the working man than NAFTA was. And now you are an economics professor? Why does the left hate all the poor people around the world. I know, Because they can't vote for them. Because the Dems can't 'get' anything from them, they just crap on them instead.
Bragging that the deficit is 100 Billion less than expected when we've been running record deficits almost since Shrub has been in office is ludicrous.9/11 was ludicrous and the Clinton surpluses were pie-in-the-sky. Check out your own deficit graqphs. We are at War and we have not been attacked since 9/11. Not even a fart in a subway. Nothing. Nada.
Shrub wanted less money spent on the highway bill.And somehow that is his fault?
Roberts nomination is payback for his part in the 2000 election giveaway to Shrub.Bush won fair and square and you just can't seem to handle the truth. Every far left media outlet in America tried to disqualify the results and failed. If I was Bush, I would have steered as far right as possible on this nominee and shoved it right up the lefts arse.
Oh, and some Repugs snuck another 1.5 billion in giveaways into the energy bill at the last minute. Who benefited? Halliburton.Of course, that evil Halliburton again. They just keep taking and taking. This song and dance is getting old. Time for some new music.

Wait Phil...you're blaming the government because the average American wants to drive a 5 ton tractor trailer to the grocery store? How much fuel does that LSC suck down? Don't be a hypocrite here and try to get all greenpeace on us. That is unless you're trading it in on an Insight. The last part of that message shows that the internal combustion engine has gotten far more efficient at producing power than it's predecessors. Modern cars give us much more bang for the buck than the Geo Metro of the 90's. But I'm going off on a tangent here...What I'm saying is that you're attempt to blame the government for failing to force people to drive econobox's is typical of the left's desire to have big brother control my friggin life.

I'm gonna go drive the HMMWV today at work for no reason other than just to piss you off...:)

And don't even get me started on NAFTA/CAFTA... Hurting the American working man my a$$. Hurting the dumb prick who thinks he should make $50 pr hr putting stickers on little plastic toys is more like it.

Hurting the dumb prick who thinks he should make $50 pr hr putting stickers on little plastic toys is more like it.Almost any low-skill product can be source anywhere in the world. I am looking for plastic fencing right now and after looking at Mexico and Israel, it looks like Argentina might be the place. It's a global economy right now. You can get stuff from anywhere. I am also looking at waxes and protectants. Some of those items might come from South Africa. We need better/higher education in America, not more low-skilled sweat shops.

9/11 was ludicrous and the Clinton surpluses were pie-in-the-sky. Check out your own deficit graqphs. We are at War and we have not been attacked since 9/11. Not even a fart in a subway. Nothing. Nada.


Dude, I spewed Mountain Dew all over my screen. You've got to cut that stuff out.

BTW, I imagine certain people on this board will now wish that we would get attacked so that you would be wrong. Terrible, huh?

Wait Phil...you're blaming the government because the average American wants to drive a 5 ton tractor trailer to the grocery store? How much fuel does that LSC suck down? Don't be a hypocrite here and try to get all greenpeace on us. That is unless you're trading it in on an Insight...

I'm gonna go drive the HMMWV today at work for no reason other than just to piss you off...:)


LOL

*owned*
:bow:

:N

BTW, I imagine certain people on this board will now wish that we would get attacked so that you would be wrong. Terrible, huh?Absolutely, without question. I am sure the left is going crazy trying to figure out why we haven't been attacked. Just think when we do (and we will) they are going to have a field day covering it and putting every drop of blood (I mean blame) on Bush. Not looking forward to it for sure. But I think it will rally the American people just like in Britain. We're not pussies, at least not the majority of us. Attacks will only serve to further our resolve.

Absolutely, without question. I am sure the left is going crazy trying to figure out why we haven't been attacked. Just think when we do (and we will) they are going to have a field day covering it and putting every drop of blood (I mean blame) on Bush. Not looking forward to it for sure. But I think it will rally the American people just like in Britain. We're not pussies, at least not the majority of us. Attacks will only serve to further our resolve.

The libs' only prayer is that we get attacked again. The longer we go without being attacked the more credibility Bush gets. "What's good for America is bad for the liberals."

Or you can read here and see where one of Bush's "projects" has failed miserably (again)..

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30478405.htm

I guess sometimes it pays to read all the way to the bottom of an article. LOL.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++
*owned* *owned**owned*

Jim Crum, a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq reconstruction, said despite security problems he believed there had been great progress in rebuilding Iraq and he pointed to the more than 600 schools rebuilt using U.S. funds.


"I think it has been done in a wartime environment with a very intelligent enemy that is continually adjusting to attack our progress and that of the Iraqis," said Crum, head of the Washington branch of the Project and Contracting Office, which is in charge of many U.S.-funded rebuilding projects.

"But given that environment, the progress on the construction program has been nothing short of astounding," he added in a recent interview with Reuters.

I read all the way to the bottom.....Was wondering why 600 schools needed rebuilding? "Errant" US bombs likely...or "targets of opportunity"?? What good is 600 schools in sweltering 100+ degree heat with no electricity....?

I read all the way to the bottom.....Was wondering why 600 schools needed rebuilding? "Errant" US bombs likely...or "targets of opportunity"?? What good is 600 schools in sweltering 100+ degree heat with no electricity....?Well, when you're fighting guys who hide behind their mommies apron, what are you supposed to do? They cry about their religion and their 'holy' places and what places did they use to play 'hide and seek'?

If they would stop bombing themselves, maybe they'd have water and electricity because I guess that is our fault too. We fix it, they go and break it and then we fix it and they go and break it. I think you get the idea. Never blame the bads guys.

I loved when they caught the a-holes in London. 'Take off your clothes and come out with your hands up!' The first whimper out their mouths...We have rights. That's when I would have pulled the trigger. Yes! You have rights. And we have rights too. Therefore we grant you the right to die right here and now scumbag!!! pow pow pow pow~~~~~~~pow.

Now not only is he the 'Greatest President Ever', it also seems he is the most 'fit' ever too.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3bf.htm

Man, he could serve another 12 years at least.

Now not only is he the 'Greatest President Ever', it also seems he is the most 'fit' ever too.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3bf.htm

Man, he could serve another 12 years at least.

You forgot the "Mis" in front of the fit.

And now you are an economics professor? Why does the left hate all the poor people around the world. I know, Because they can't vote for them. Because the Dems can't 'get' anything from them, they just crap on them instead.


And now you are a social scientist? Why does the right hate all the poor people of THIS country? I know, because they never vote for them, because the repugs would rather we send our support of the poor abroad and just crap on those here at home.

You forgot the "Mis" in front of the fit.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !

Ohhh...you kill me! (wipes tears from eyes)

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

I loved when they caught the a-holes in London. 'Take off your clothes and come out with your hands up!' The first whimper out their mouths...We have rights. That's when I would have pulled the trigger. Yes! You have rights. And we have rights too. Therefore we grant you the right to die right here and now scumbag!!! pow pow pow pow~~~~~~~pow.

Mel Gibson said it best in Lethal Weapon 4:

"You have the right to remain unconscious. Anything you say ain't gonna be much."

BTW, don't get me started on the whole Miranda decision anyway. What a bunch of crap that landmark case was.

And now you are a social scientist? Why does the right hate all the poor people of THIS country? I know, because they never vote for them, because the repugs would rather we send our support of the poor abroad and just crap on those here at home.

Dems obviously crap on the poor. Look at the latest property rights decision by the libs on the Supreme Court. Favors big business over the little guy.

LIBERALS=HYPOCRITES

Ya know what is so great about long winded cut and pasted posts by someone who might do better to think for themselves rather than spew drivel from publications I have no desire to waste my time reading????

................NOTHING!!
Haha!!

Bryan,
All I can say is "what a bunch of bull:q:q:q:q".
E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, July 27 - With Congress poised for a final vote on the energy bill, the Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision Tuesday to delay the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy.

But a copy of the report, embargoed for publication Wednesday, was sent to The New York Times by a member of the E.P.A. communications staff just minutes before the decision was made to delay it until next week. The contents of the report show that loopholes in American fuel economy regulations have allowed automakers to produce cars and trucks that are significantly less fuel-efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's.

Releasing the report this week would have been inopportune for the Bush administration, its critics said, because it would have come on the eve of a final vote in Congress on energy legislation six years in the making. The bill, as it stands, largely ignores auto mileage regulations.

The executive summary of the copy of the report obtained by The Times acknowledges that "fuel economy is directly related to energy security," because consumer cars and trucks account for about 40 percent of the nation's oil consumption. But trends highlighted in the report show that carmakers are not making progress in improving fuel economy, and environmentalists say the energy bill will do little to prod them.

"Something's fishy when the Bush administration delays a report showing no improvement in fuel economy until after passage of their energy bill, which fails to improve fuel economy," said Daniel Becker, the Sierra Club's top global warming strategist. "It's disturbing that despite high gas prices, an oil war and growing concern about global warming pollution, most automakers are failing to improve fuel economy."

Eryn Witcher, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said the timing of the release of the report had nothing to do with the energy bill deliberations.

"We are committed to sharing our scientific studies with the public in the most comprehensive and understandable format possible," she said. "Issue experts are reviewing the fuel economy data and we look forward to providing a summary of the information next week."

Some of what the report says reaffirms what has long been known. Leaps in engine technology over the last couple of decades have been mostly used to make cars faster, not more fuel-efficient, and the rise of sport utility vehicles and S.U.V.-like pickup trucks has actually sapped efficiency. The average 2004 model car or truck got 20.8 miles per gallon, about 6 percent less than the 22.1 m.p.g. of the average new vehicle sold in the late 1980's, according to the report.

At the same time, while General Motors and the Ford Motor Company are the most common targets of environmental groups, the E.P.A. report shows that several foreign automakers have had the sharpest declines in recent fuel economy performance as they move aggressively into the truck market.

The average 2004 model sold by Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen was at least a half-mile a gallon less fuel-efficient than in the previous model year, a sharp drop.

"It's appalling that Nissan, V.W. and Hyundai are accelerating in reverse," Mr. Becker said.

Kyle Bazemore, a Nissan spokesman, said the company's new large pickup truck, the Titan, and new large S.U.V.'s, like the Armada, clearly affected its overall results.

"In '03, we didn't have the Titan and Armada," he said. "We've entered into new markets, but we feel we are doing it responsibly."

John Krafcik, vice president of product development and corporate strategy at Hyundai, pointed out that his company sells relatively few S.U.V.'s but has recently increased its offerings. "Car by car, we're improving fuel economy on every model in our range," he said. "That's a more appropriate way to look at it."

David Friedman, a research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, disagreed.

"The 8.5 million barrels a day that American cars and trucks use have to do with the vehicles on the road, not the model-by-model comparisons," he said. "What matters to our oil consumption is the fuel economy of the fleet on the road."

Of the eight major automakers examined in the report, only G.M., Toyota and Honda showed increases in fuel efficiency in the 2004 model year, the most recent year for which hard sales data is available. Ford had the lowest mileage of the group. Honda, which does not sell the heaviest kinds of trucks, had the best overall mileage.

Some foreign companies do not even trouble themselves to follow fuel economy regulations. BMW, in fact, has paid more than $70 million in fines since the 2000 model year for noncompliance. The company has argued that American fuel regulations, which are taken as an average over a company's entire fleet, put luxury makers at a disadvantage.

"We sell the ultimate driving machine and people expect us to offer them the kind of BMW vehicles they really want to drive," said Dave Buchko, a spokesman.

Backers of the energy bill have said it will broadly change the nation's energy policy.

Representative Joe L. Barton, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said this week that "it is a darn good bill, and it is going to help this country, and the sooner we get it done, the better."

Environmentalists disagree.

"It effectively does nothing to cut our dependence on oil," Mr. Friedman said.

While the proposed bill, as it stands, does offer limited tax credits for hybrid electric cars and advanced diesels, environmental groups object to extending mileage credits for vehicles that can be filled up with an ethanol blend instead of gasoline; many consumers who purchase such vehicles are not even aware of the feature.

The E.P.A. report illustrates what has happened as the industry has poured resources into S.U.V.'s, minivans and family-oriented pickup trucks, vehicle types with less stringent fuel economy requirements than cars. The average new vehicle weight has risen to about 4,000 pounds today, from about 3,200 in the early 1980's. At the same time, the horsepower of an average engine has roughly doubled over two decades, trimming four seconds from the time it takes for the average vehicle to accelerate from zero to 60.


Energy Tax Breaks Total $14.5 Billion
Some Lawmakers Wanted More Support for Efficiency, Alternative Sources

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 28, 2005; Page A04

Congressional negotiators completed work yesterday on a $14.5 billion package of tax breaks as part of a major energy bill that provides far less support for alternative energy and efficiency than many lawmakers had urged.

The tax package -- negotiated behind closed doors by lawmakers -- would award 58 percentof the total benefit over 10 years to traditional energy industries, including oil, natural gas, coal, electric utilities and nuclear power. About 36 percent of the total would go for renewable sources of energy, energy efficiency and cleaner-burning vehicles. The Senate had sought considerably more in tax incentives for conservation and alternative sources of energy in its version of the energy bill approved last month.

Politics Trivia
Sen. Robert C. Byrd has held public office for more than 50 years. Who was president the last time the senator from West Virginia won an election with less than 60 percent of the vote?

Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter

Both chambers are expected to approve the energy bill this week after years of failed attempts. Lawmakers who negotiated the tax provisions -- melding vastly different packages approved by the House and the Senate -- said the legislation would benefit consumers by encouraging more supplies and developing cleaner-burning forms of energy.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, described the tax breaks as "well balanced among renewable energy, conservation and traditional energy sources" and said, "Renewable energy and conservation got a very big slice of the pie." Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), a member of the Finance Committee, said he wanted to see more spent on alternative energy and conservation.

Energy providers lobbied heavily for the tax provisions, and many were thrilled with the results. But taxpayer advocates and environmental groups complained that the bill would distribute billions in tax dollars to highly profitable companies that do not need government assistance at a time of soaring energy costs.

"They've created a complicated scheme of making sure a lot of different profitable energy industries are going to make off like bandits," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense. He said the tax breaks help companies "pad their bottom line, but it doesn't really create new behavior in the energy industry."

The Bush administration had sought a $6.7 billion tax package, but the Joint Committee on Taxation said the 10-year net cost would be $11.5 billion. The bill would generate an estimated $3 billion in revenue to partly offset the $14.5 billion in tax breaks.

Despite the costs, White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said President Bush supports the energy bill, which he has sought passage of since he took office in 2001. "While we may not agree with every last detail, this is a really good bill that's good for consumers, good for business and good for the environment," Perino said.

Lawmakers said the tax breaks would help revive the nuclear industry and spur the development of cleaner-burning coal plants.

The measure includes tax breaks for the production of nuclear energy and the production of energy from alternative sources such as wind, biomass and geothermal means.

For the oil industry, the legislation would allow some costs associated with exploration to be deducted over a shorter period and would provide tax benefits when oil and gas production is delayed and a lease is extended.

In an effort to encourage more refining capacity, the legislation would grant tax breaks to expand capacity. Analysts have said that a lack of refining capacity is a factor helping to push up gasoline prices.

The measure would allow utilities less time to deduct the cost of natural gas distribution lines that connect homes and neighborhoods. The industry said the measure would encourage more rapid expansion of pipelines to newly built communities and the replacement of lines that are aging.

In an effort to encourage the expansion of the electrical grid, the bill would allow more rapid depreciation of assets used in the transmission and distribution of electricity.

The bill also includes tax breaks for the purchase of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles and for improving the energy efficiency of homes and commercial buildings.

Ya know what is so great about long winded cut and pasted posts by someone who might do better to think for themselves rather than spew drivel from publications I have no desire to waste my time reading????

................NOTHING!!
Haha!!I read Phil's articles. They certainly have a place here. I like to put up an article and either support it or rip it apart.

The problem is, there is no reporting any more. There is only slant publication. Both sides do it but the left does it as their only means of communication. Every article, within the 1st 2 paragraphs, you can tell where it is going. That is what frustrates me. Instead of simply laying it out there and letting people form their own opinions, the info comes neatly packaged and slanted.

I would like to see a news media report side by side articles on every subject. One from the lefts view and one from the right. Then let people read the 2 slants and decide which side they fall on.

Oh, and I also hate editorial boards that come out with their list of candidates that they will be endorsing. Like everybody is a dumb ass and we better vote the way that the 'informed' media tells us to.

Let's face it, what I am asking will never happen because the left's arguments are usually not plausible.

The problem is, there is no reporting any more. There is only slant publication. Both sides do it but the left does it as their only means of communication. Every article, within the 1st 2 paragraphs, you can tell where it is going. That is what frustrates me. Instead of simply laying it out there and letting people form their own opinions, the info comes neatly packaged and slanted.
Well... ya summed it up very well right there.... I just cant stand reading very negatively slanted drivel... really.... can't stand it!!

Well... ya summed it up very well right there.... I just cant stand reading very negatively slanted drivel... really.... can't stand it!!

Hey, do like I do...don't. I usually just skim for the highlights. It doesn't take long for me to get the gist of the articles, since their premises are so shallow.

I read all the way to the bottom.....Was wondering why 600 schools needed rebuilding? "Errant" US bombs likely...or "targets of opportunity"?? What good is 600 schools in sweltering 100+ degree heat with no electricity....?

Your best friend and chief liberal candidtae for president in 08 saddam hussein place AAA and other military hardware in and around schools and hospitals often on roof tops. Plus I am sure he was spnding all that extra dough from the oil for food program that we all know was ran in the most transparent and above the board fashion huh was usd to impove infrastructure, schools and hospitals.

We have the most accurate and hummanitarian military in the world; I defy you or anyone else on a high horse to prove otherwise.

I read Phil's articles. They certainly have a place here. I like to put up an article and either support it or rip it apart.

The problem is, there is no reporting any more. There is only slant publication. Both sides do it but the left does it as their only means of communication. Every article, within the 1st 2 paragraphs, you can tell where it is going. That is what frustrates me. Instead of simply laying it out there and letting people form their own opinions, the info comes neatly packaged and slanted.

I would like to see a news media report side by side articles on every subject. One from the lefts view and one from the right. Then let people read the 2 slants and decide which side they fall on.

Oh, and I also hate editorial boards that come out with their list of candidates that they will be endorsing. Like everybody is a dumb ass and we better vote the way that the 'informed' media tells us to.

Let's face it, what I am asking will never happen because the left's arguments are usually not plausible.

no doubt it is as if the MSM gets a daily brief on what everyone is going to report on. I cannot recall any point within the past 6 years that any of the media outlets have done anything original. Well except forge documents CBS did a great job on that project.