Posted on 06/11/2005 9:49:53 AM PDT by Salvation
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Radio Address Ping List.
** My energy strategy will lessen our dependence on foreign oil by encouraging conservation, promoting domestic production in environmentally friendly ways, and funding promising new sources of energy such as hydrogen, ethanol, and biodiesel. It will also modernize our aging electricity grid.**
What doesn't the Senate like about this?
I think it sets out his priorities well. Get busy, Congress!
** This voluntary benefit begins next January, and seniors will be eligible to enroll starting this November. The plan will provide many options for dependable prescription drug coverage through Medicare. During the coming months, we will work to educate all of our seniors about this new benefit, so they can choose confidently the drug plan that best meets their needs.**
So are the dems lying? Is there REALLY help for the 'social security' generation?
**Get busy, Congress!**
Definitely bump that thought!
Maybe we all need to email our Representatives and Senators!
How can you expect to cut the budget in half by 2009 but yet have rampant pork barrel spending.. I see it as just another pipe dream. STOP THE DEFICIT SPENDING for the debt is a tax upon further generations!
I especially appreciated his strong stance against illegal immigration.</sarcasm>
What doesn't the Senate like about this?
That a Republican President submitted it? /opinion
I want to know why he isn't pushing for more nuculer plants.
I believe that is covered in the following statement.
It will also modernize our aging electricity grid
"...and keeps us on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009..."
What does this mean? I think he means to 'cut deficit spending' in half. What is wrong with having 'balanced spending' - no spending greater than income? If there is a finite limit on income (and there is), why not the same finite limit on spending?
You left out the key word!
I don't take it to mean that at all. To me, it means we will dump more money into the failing infrastructure while ignoring nuclear energy. Are there even any plans to build a new nuclear plant anywhere in the U.S.?
Realize how happy people are to get a few nominations are that period of time, why the rush?
"...modernize our aging electricity grid..."
One clean, economic solution that can be done quickly is to pull out the stops on building nuclear power generation stations. By now we know how to build them without a 'three-mile-island' syndrome, and we know how to manage 'waste' from these new facilities. All we have to do it get the politics out, and maybe even get the private sector out. TVA was and is a viable, non-private sector entity. Something similar could be done for new power generation around the country. Grids could then be operated in a unified manner, reducing the probability of blackouts.
The second viable alternative is to develop 'wind generation farms' around the country. Obviously they should be located where wind is somewhat reliable. The latest wind turbine technology teaches that low RPM, with multiple blades is most efficient, and also operates effectively at much lower wind speeds. Low RPM is also beneficial from a maintenance consideration. Lubericants are available today that further minimize maintenance.
"That a Republican President BUSH submitted it?"
You left out the key word!
You're right...my bad. Just figured that they'd have a problem with any (R) president, unless he was a "moderate". I stand corrected.
"...modernize our aging electricity grid..."
A further thought on this - the largest single item on my electric bill each month is 'Transition Charge'. This is everything the power companies could find and lump together when 'deregulation' occurred that has nothing to to with the current cost of generation or delivery.
Before regulation they could spend for just about anything and lump it into the cost of producing and supplying electricity. Then the various PUCO's would grant them rate increases based on all that, so there was no desire to be efficient or prudent in their spending.
When 'deregulation' came along, mandated by Congress, these utility companies were allowed to write all that off on our bills as 'Transition Charge' (Transition from 'regulation' to 'deregulation'). This is just a big rip-off for the consumer. And they still get to add this to your bill if you choose a different energy supplier.
With 'Transition Charge' out of the equation, we could have some of that money included to help underwrite the cost of 'modernizing the grid'.
You are and were absolutely correct. I was just messin' with ya. We ALL know EVERYTHING is President Bush's fault!
;*)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.