Copyright 2006

  • Storm Pictures, LLC. All rights reserved.
  • Linked and quoted articles are the copyright property of the original sources and authors.

Fair Use Notice

  • This website may at times contain credited copyright material, the posting of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We believe that our inclusion of such material, in an effort to advance an understanding of environmental, political, social justice and human rights issues, constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyright material as provided for in the US Copyright Law at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. To utilize this copyright material for purposes that go beyond ‘fair use’, permission must be obtained from the actual copyright owner.
Blog powered by TypePad

« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »

April 29, 2008

Gas tax holiday no picnic

By John Broder

From the New York Times

WASHINGTON — As angry truckers encircled the Capitol in a horn-blaring caravan and consumers across the country agonized over $60 fill-ups, the issue of high fuel prices flared on the campaign trail on Monday, sharply dividing the two Democratic candidates.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season. But Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports.

While Mr. Obama’s view is shared by environmentalists and many independent energy analysts, his position allowed Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast with her opponent in appealing to the hard-hit middle-class families and older Americans who have proven to be the bedrock of her support. She has accused Mr. Obama of being out of touch with ordinary Americans who are struggling to meet their mortgages and gas up their cars and trucks.

Mrs. Clinton said at a rally on Monday morning in Graham, N.C., that she would introduce legislation to impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies and use the revenue to suspend the gasoline tax temporarily.

“At the heart of my approach is a simple belief,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Middle-class families are paying too much and oil companies aren’t paying their fair share to help us solve the problems at the pump.”

The split occurred as Senators Clinton and Obama were competing intensely in primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, where voters go to the polls next Tuesday. Opinion surveys have shown that the faltering economy and high gas prices are the top concerns of voters across the country, edging out the war in Iraq.

The Clinton campaign is running television advertising in Indiana contrasting her approach on gas prices with Mr. Obama’s.

Mrs. Clinton said the tax on the oil companies, which have been reporting record profits as oil prices soar, would cover all of the lost revenue from the federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. She also said no highway projects would suffer.

Mr. Obama derided the McCain-Clinton idea of a federal tax holiday as a “short-term, quick-fix” proposal that would do more harm than good, and said the money, which is earmarked for the federal highway trust fund, is badly needed to maintain the nation’s roads and bridges.

In 2000, Mr. Obama supported a bill in the Illinois legislature to suspend most of the state’s 6.25 percent gasoline sales tax. But he later opposed making the reduction permanent, arguing that the state needed the revenue and that the measure had saved consumers little.

Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has also taken varying stands on the issue of gas taxes. In her 2000 Senate campaign, she spoke against repealing the federal gasoline tax, calling it “one of those few taxes that New York actually gets more money from Washington than we send.”

At a meeting with voters in North Carolina on Monday, Mr. Obama said lifting the gas tax for three months would save the average consumer no more than $30, a figure confirmed by Congressional analysts. Mr. Obama has previously dismissed Mr. McCain’s proposal as a “scheme.”

“Half a tank of gas,” Mr. Obama told his audience. “That’s his big solution.”

President Bush’s spokeswoman essentially sided with Mr. Obama in saying that tax holidays and new levies on oil companies would not address the long-term problems of dependence on foreign oil.

Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said gasoline prices were “entirely too high, but I think it would be disingenuous and unfortunate for American consumers for them to be led to believe that there is a short-term fix.”

“There is not going to be one,” Ms. Perino said.

It is not clear whether Congress will act quickly on a fuel tax suspension and a new levy on oil companies, particularly given the White House opposition. While Democratic leaders are sympathetic, aides said, similar plans have failed a number of times.

The debate erupted as both candidates rounded up more superdelegate endorsements on Monday, with Mr. Obama highlighting the backing of Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, while Gov. Michael F. Easley of North Carolina was preparing to endorse Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday.

The split on the gas tax is a relatively rare one for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, who agree on the broad outlines of policy in most areas. They have both called for the suspension of purchases for the national strategic petroleum stockpile, a supply of oil to protect the country against sudden supply disruptions; new taxes on oil companies; measures to curb global warming; and heavy federal spending on renewable energy sources. They have also called for a federal investigation of possible manipulation in oil markets.

Mr. McCain has also called for a halt to purchases for the petroleum reserve and expressed support of climate-change legislation, but opposes the imposition of windfall-profits taxes on oil companies.

All three candidates have endorsed tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks and diplomatic measures to pressure oil-producing nations to lower prices.

The federal tax on motor fuels — the tax on diesel fuel is 24.4 cents a gallon — yielded $28.2 billion in 2006, the last full year for which statistics are available. The last time the federal fuel taxes were raised significantly was in 1993 as part of President Bill Clinton’s budget-balancing package.

The highway trust fund that the gas tax finances provides money to states and local governments to pay for road and bridge construction, repair and maintenance. Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton propose to suspend the tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the peak driving season, which would lower tax receipts by roughly $9 billion and potentially cost 300,000 highway construction jobs, according to state highway officials.

Mrs. Clinton would replace that money with the new tax on oil company profits, an idea that has been kicking around Congress for several years but has not been enacted into law. Mr. McCain would divert tax revenue from other sources to make the highway trust fund whole.

The Senate blocked a $15 billion tax on oil companies last December that was part of a larger energy package.

A McCain spokesman sought to use the gas tax issue to drive a wedge between the two Democratic candidates and paint Mr. Obama as a flip-flopper given how he voted as a state lawmaker in 2000.

“It’s clear Barack Obama’s not strong enough to provide immediate relief at the pump, and it shows he doesn’t understand our economy or have the ability to deliver for hard-working Americans,” said Tucker Bounds, a McCain aide. “Senator Obama’s arguments against John McCain’s gas tax holiday are complete fiction, and the reality is that he used to support a gas tax holiday before he was running for president.”

April 22, 2008

Sierra Club comments on the Trans-Texas Corridor

"The Tier I development and evaluation process has not been 'rigorous' and there has not been a 'proactive agency and public involvement program' because the public has spoken overwhelmingly that it does not want the proposal but the proposers still push the proposal. There is no 'balance' in meeting the purpose and need and minimizing the potential for environmental effects because there is a conflict of interest in pushing the proposal forward.

This leads the Sierra Club to the believe that instead of preparing a factual and unbiased DEIS [Draft Environmental Impact Statement]the proposers are attempting to mislead and mold the opinions of the public and decision-makers by misinterpretation via language of what really is at stake and exists in the I-69/TTC project area. This is the very antithesis of what an EIS is supposed to be and do. Such actions call for a withdrawal of the DEIS and a total reanalysis that is based on factual evidence and narrative and not manipulative and self-serving language that predetermines the outcome of this proposal.

The effects of current actions are not considered in the analysis of whether I-69/TTC should be constructed. For instance, global warming and the effects it is having and the generation of greenhouse gases that roads cause; the increased cost of oil, up to about $100/barrel; the increased cost of gasoline which is $3/gallon now and if expected to go to $4/gallon this summer; the collapse of the housing market; the recession that is evident in the United States economy; the reduction in funds for roads due to funding two wars, etc. All of these and more current actions affect and should play a role in determining whether I-69/TTC should be built. But there is no discussion about how these actions affect the decision of whether to build I-69/TTC."

--Brandt Mannchen, Air Quality Issue Chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, in a letter stating the environmental group's official comments to the FHA and TxDOT on TTC-69

Read the entire letter on Sal Costello's blog.

April 18, 2008

Mr. Thirty-Nine Percent's 'reality'

By R. G. Ratcliffe

From the San Antonio Express-News

AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry said he will seek re-election in 2010.

During a break in the Republican Governor's Association meeting in Grapevine Thursday, Perry said he would like to return as governor.

A reporter asked him if the 2010 Republican gubernatorial field would include himself as well as U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, according to The Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in stories posted to their online editions Thursday.

"I don't know about them, but it will be Perry in 2010," Perry responded.

"I don't know about the other two. You need to ask them."

Hutchison has strongly indicated that she will run but has vacillated as to whether she actually is in the race.

Dewhurst also has indicated that he would like to run for the office.

Perry became governor in December 2000 when then-Gov. George W. Bush resigned to become president. Perry won election in 2002 and re-election in 2006.

In the second contest, he defeated three opponents to win with 39 percent of the vote.

Hutchison issued a statement Thursday that said, “I am encouraged by the growing number of Texans asking me to return home to run for Governor to provide leadership for our state. It is too early to make an announcement about the 2010 race. Right now I remain committed to serving the people of Texas in the United States Senate and helping our Republican candidates win crucial elections this fall.”

Perry spokesman Robert Black confirmed the governor’s statements, but said: “It's nothing he hasn't talked about before.”

Perry has spoken about the possibility of running for re-election in 2010 before, but this is the first time that he has flatly stated that he will run.

Texas Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie said that "after five years of absolute and failed Republican rule" in Texas there was no reason to think Perry would do any better with voters in 2010 than he did in 2006.

"Today, Gov. Perry's announcement that he will seek reelection in 2010 signaled that he may want to serve as Governor for life, but in 2006, a 61 percent majority of Texans already said they want someone else, and he's done nothing to inspire Texans’ confidence since then,” Richie said.

April 16, 2008

“As in most things, liberals in Hollywood tend to live in the fiction fantasy world. The governor lives in reality.”

--Robert Black, spokesman for Governor Rick Perry, quoted by Ralph Blumenthal of the New York Times in his April 5th article about the documentary, Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars, a film narrated and sponsored by Robert Redford

April 10, 2008

The TTC-69 rally


April 09, 2008

Mythic

"Let’s be clear – the Trans-Texas Corridor is the NAFTA superhighway.

No one who supports the Trans-Texas Corridor likes to say the words 'NAFTA
superhighway.' They call it an 'urban myth.'

If the NAFTA superhighway is such a myth, why is the Bush administration work-
ing so hard to let Mexican trucks use our highways?

If the NAFTA superhighway is such a myth, why is corporate America holding
summits on the need for a huge network of freight corridors from Mexico to Canada?

If the NAFTA superhighway is such a myth, why is Mexico working with giant cor-
porations to expand its ports and its road and rail connections to the U.S. border?

The reason they say the NAFTA superhighway is a myth is because they know that
the vast majority of Americans don’t want it."

--James P. Hoffa, General President of The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, in a letter read to crowds at Saturday's anti-TTC march on the Texas capitol

View a PDF file of the entire letter here.

April 01, 2008

Current admin in action: ignoring rules to get what it wants

"Laws ensuring clean water for us and our children -- dismissed. Laws protecting wildlife, land, rivers, streams and places of cultural significance -- just a bother to the Bush administration. Laws giving American citizens a voice in the process -- gone. Clearly this is out of control.

It is this kind of absolute disregard for the well-being and concerns of border communities and the welfare of our wildlife and untamed borderlands that has forced Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club to take a stand and say 'No more!'

Just a few weeks ago we filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to fight the unconstitutional authority the Bush administration has seized to waive any and all laws it views as inconvenient in its rush to build an unpopular, ineffective border wall. Today's egregious abuse of power is more proof that this cannot be allowed to continue."

--Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, in response to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's announcement today that he is imposing a blanket waiver of environmental and land management laws along 470 miles of the U.S. and Mexico border

Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of this controversial waiver as a "flagrant violation of the separation of powers principle that frames the U.S. Constitution."