Bridges That Need to be Repaired in California and the Nation—Taxes and Priorities

Have Mary lyon write an article about waste in government spending (i.e.earmarks) before she babble on about taxes. The average citezen in the US has no say in what the money the government taxes them is spent for. Eliminate earmarks and provide complete transparency to the public that shows exactly where thier money goes.

After this is accomplished (good luck)then we can talk about more taxes, and more taxes.

So Mary, what do you say? About earmarks and political ploys that aren't in the best interest of the citizens of the US, that don't address infrastructure, and then complain that we need to pay even more? Any comments?

This is a really foolish article written by someone who should know better.

1. We do not know why the bridge fell down in Minneapolis. Expert opinion, so far, seems to be that the constructiono techniques used in the 1960's were just not adequate for the long term. But, we don't know.

2. Tax rates were REDUCED by George Bush but tax receipts are INCREASED. Now, really, since WWII whenever tax rates were decreased, starting with President Kennedy,the same thing has happened.

3. The problem with increased taxes is that this will not solve the problems the author mentioned.

The problem with this article is that somehow raising tax rates will permit the Government to make life fair for everyone.

Mary, life is not fair, and Government bureaucrats can no more solve the problems of society any more than the Soviets and their Nomenclura did in the past. Is this what you want? A system of proven failure to replace a system which does work in the US, but it has its faults.

Here, in France, the situation is more like what you think we should do. But, I notice that France is full of ads for the US green card lottery, and that people are going to US, not coming here.

To RRoemmich,

Government spending, and the earmark system particularly, has an element of public funding for political campaigns and the re-election of incumbant politicians.

Yes, we have public funding of elections in the US. We don't see it because it looks like corruption and foolish spending. But, the system works this way:

A company, or a pressure group makes a proposal to supply goods or services or applies for a Government grant. Because virtually every aspect of the Executive Branch is supervised by Congressional commitees (and the same system exists in every state as well), the Congressmen can play a decisive role.

Now, Political Action Committees, can give money for political campaigns. When I was a Corporate Executive I got a bonus every year for which I was expected to use for our favorite politicians. Now, contracts we had with the Federal or State Governments was good business and and contributed to our cash flows very positively.

So, we enjoyed good Governmnent business, but the renewals of the contracts was not assured if some other entity out-contributed us. So, Government money cycled from the treaury to our contracts, got skimmed, distributed to employees who gave it to the same representatives who made sure we got the contracts renewed.

Earmarks are just the most vulgar part of the system because these have no oversight by anyone. So, bridges get built to nowhere because the land values to "nowhere" would skyrocket, and, yes, you might be shocked, yes shocked, to hear that the land is owned by close relatives of the legislators.

So, this is a very expensive and corrupt way to finance election campaigns and to put money in the pockets of the politicians. And, it is pretty overt.

And, of course, thing like Congressman Murtha's earmarks to his son's company in Georgia (almost 100% dependent on Government contracts) is just one more example of the kind of stuff which goes on.

Perhaps I have spent far too much time in Washington, but the sytem is similar here in France too.

In the 1990's it was revealed that French procurement contracts were overbilled by 5% to 10% (called fausse factures) and the money was re-directed directly to the political party in power.

So, you should not be surprised.

Thank you, Mary Lyon, for hitting the ball out of the park. The issue is the Republicans' wrong-headed view of government and taxation in particular. As a middle-of-the-road Democrat, I am somewhat sympathetic to their cries for smaller government, a sort of return to a federalism of the states. The problem is they are in denial of larger issues, such as the federally-sponsored interstate highway system, for example; what is the states' interest in a national economy, for example, a question they have not convincingly dealt with. I find it ironic that I, as a Democrat, advocate improving our infrastructure (in its broadest sense) to improve conditions for business! The Cavemen Republicans' argument for lower taxes is simply self-serving, ignoring the common good that derives from a state that has good schools, low or non-existant college tuitions, and planning that looks far ahead. The Cavemen are simply reducing California to another third-world nation through their inattention to pressing social and economic needs, and folks such as some of the writers above continue that denial. If you want to return to an economy where the longest pole knocks down the most persimmons, take a closer look at Mexico, for example--no problem about taxes there, is there?

Mary lyon,

Fixing roads and how to pay and who should pay is very jucy subject

Good job.

Do you have an opinion on AB118 (Nunez)

An issue that seems to be getting legs

Prop 87 in the last election received lots of interest to the tune of over $150,000,000.00 in moneys spent over should we tax oil production in California.

Now we may charge a fee at DMV for simular reasons and it is pretty quiet

What do you think?

Clean Air Performance Professionals

Auto Club of Southern California

Oct 05, 2007 12:01 ET

Auto Club Asks Governor to Veto New $1 Billion Car Tax Bill

LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwire - October 5, 2007) - The Automobile Club of Southern California is urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto Assembly Bill 118. According to the Auto Club, this legislation would violate the state constitution by unfairly and unlawfully raising taxes on motorists to fund programs unrelated to automobile use, ownership or operation.

AB118, approved by the Legislature in September, would raise vehicle registration fees by $3 and increase smog abatement fees 66% by raising the fee on newer, cleaner cars to $20 annually. AB118 would cost motorists more than $150 million each year and well over $1 billion through the life of the bill.

"If AB118 is enacted, motorists alone would bear the cost of multi-million dollar programs addressing pollution problems that they did not cause," said Steve Lenzi, the Auto Club's senior vice president for public affairs. "The bill would provide grants and loans to private enterprise, including venture capitalists, and pay to retrofit or replace engines of heavy duty trucks and lawn mowers. While these programs may be laudable, they are not responsibility of the average motorist."

According to the Auto Club, this bill directly contradicts the wishes of voters. Many of the programs in AB118 are similar to those contained in Proposition 87, decisively rejected by voters in November 2006. Now, in what the Auto Club believes is a direct slap in the face of those voters, the bill seeks to transfer taxpayer dollars to private enterprise to pay for research and development efforts that these businesses would then benefit from financially.

AB118 does have sections that would benefit motorists, including a vehicle replacement program that the Auto Club believes has the potential to reduce vehicle-related air pollution even further. But according to the Auto Club, this one program does not justify an unwieldy and inappropriate scheme to burden motorists.

"This bill is inequitable and unlawful, and we urge the governor to do the right thing and veto the bill," Lenzi said.

CONTACT:, Carol Thorp or Jeffrey Spring, (714) 885-2333

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=777946

Clean Air Performance Professionals

Biofuels Plans May Cause Water Shortages

By Michael Casey, AP Environmental Writer, FOX, October 10, 2007

BANGKOK, Thailand — China's and India's plans to produce more biofuels could cause shortages of water, which is needed for crops to feed their growing populations, according to study results released Thursday.

The International Water Management Institute or IWMI study said both countries are counting on maize and sugarcane, which need large amounts of water, for much of their biofuels.

"Crop production for biofuels in China and India would likely jeopardize sustainable water use and thus affect irrigated production of food crops, including cereals and vegetables, which would then need to be imported in larger quantities," Charlotte de Fraiture, the study's lead author, said in a statement.

"Are these countries, particularly India which has devoted so much effort to achieving food security, adequately considering the trade-offs involved, especially the prospect of importing food to free up sufficient water and land for production of biofuel crops?"

Neither an Indian nor a Chinese government spokesman could immediately be reached for comment on the study results.

The study follows one released earlier this week by the National Research Council, which warned that increased production of these crops for ethanol could threaten water supplies in the United States.

The IWMI study is also the latest to warn that growing demand for biofuels could shortchange poorer countries that depend on staples like maize to feed their populations. Setting aside more land for biofuels could also raise prices for everything from eggs to beef, as feed would become more expensive.

"For the 2 billion poorest people in the world, many of whom spend half or more of their income on food, rising grain prices can quickly become life-threatening," Lester Brown, the founder of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute think tank, wrote in 2006.

"The broader risk is that rising food prices could spread hunger and generate political instability in low-income countries that import grain," Brown wrote.

The IWMI study said China aims to increase biofuels production fourfold to around 4 billion gallons of ethanol _ 9 percent of its projected gasoline demand _ by 2020, from a 2002 level of 950 million gallons.

India is pursuing a similarly aggressive strategy. Last month it announced plans to double the requirement for ethanol-blend gasoline to 10 percent in the next year.

To meet their biofuels targets, China would need to produce 26 percent more maize and India 16 percent more sugarcane, the study found. It said doing so would require an extra 20 gallons of irrigation water per person per day in China, and an additional 18.5 gallons per day in India, beyond what is needed for food.

The IWMI's David Molden said in a statement that the situation could worsen already dire water shortages in parts of China and India.

"Without major changes in water management, how are we going to feed a growing population, satisfy increasing demand for meat, and, on top of that, use crops as a major source of fuel?"

The study suggested that the two countries could focus on crops that need less water, such as sweet sorghum for ethanol, and species including the jatropha bush and pongamia trees for biodiesel.

India has already announced plans to plant about 7.7 million acres of jatropha plantations by 2009, and to have identified another 98.8 million acres of wasteland by then to grow the plant.

Jatropha seeds are crushed and mixed with fuel to produce biodiesel.

IWMI is a Sri Lanka-based nonprofit scientific institute that focuses on sustainable use of water and land resources. It has 100 scientists from 16 countries and works on research projects in 21 countries.
____
On the Net: International Water Management Institute Web site: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct10/0,4670,AsiaBiofuelToughChoices,00.html

Clean Air Performance Professionals

Post a comment