Bush to Sign Massive Energy Bill Into Law

AP ^ | 8/8/05 | Deb Riechmann

[lstanle]

"Supporters say that in the long run, the new law will refocus the nation's energy priorities and promote cleaner and alternative sources of energy. Bush has said he believes the nation must find new ways, besides fossil fuels, to power the economy."

I think this is a lot of PC BS, I think the nation must find and develop more oil sites such as ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico off Florida and other states.

[EagleUSA]

The main problem I have is government giving money to private industry....
-----
Yes, it is bad. Too much of our money is being dealt out to people who really don't need it or deserve it -- it makes no difference whether its big oil that makes big political contributions, or illegal Mexicans and the Latino community that make big political contributions...they get our tax dollars very much against our will. This adminstration, and the Congress, is BIG on subsidizing industry and business with our tax dollars...it is a matter of history.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Very good

[longtermmemmory]

just a heads up folks,

The left is calling this the "dirty energy" bill.


IOW it only supports "dirty" forms of energy.

[frgoff]

Typical Bush.

More regulation, more pork barrel spending.

Does this bill actually contain things that will SOLVE the problem? Like relaxing environmental regulations on refineries, relaxing environmental regulations on offshore drilling? Relaxing regulations on EPA mandated gasoline formulations?

I didn't think so.

[gpapa]

Lets see. $12 billion for energy. $286 billion for a transportation bill. Seems a little imbalanced to me

[TigersEye]

I hate welfare and I hate Daylight Savings Time. I think I hate this bill. Buncha Nanny State socialism.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

It does not include Bush's desire to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.

Of course, Bush desires no such thing. He wishes to open up exploration on a postage-stamp-sized parcel of land within the refuge that has been designated for exploration since the time the refuge was created.

[Physicist]

Here's what the country needs for an energy policy:

• Full court press on hydrogen fusion research
• Full court press on hydrogen fuel cell development
• Aggressive expansion of domestic oil production
• Aggressive construction of nuclear fission plants
• Destabilization and replacement of Venezuelan, Syrian, and Iranian governments

The first two are the most important, but also by far the hardest. We can't replace gasoline without an economical way to turn hydrogen into mechanical energy; we can't use hydrogen without cheap energy to produce it.

[Physicist]

Oops, forgot one:

• EMP amelioration for power grid and vital technical infrastructure

[Sam Cree]

**Full court press on hydrogen fusion research
Full court press on hydrogen fuel cell development
Aggressive expansion of domestic oil production
Aggressive construction of nuclear fission plants
Destabilization and replacement of Venezuelan, Syrian, and Iranian governments**

I tend to agree with the above. Even though we do not owe all the modern inventions and energy sources that we now enjoy to government decrees, a government program did invent the atom bomb, so that shows that the state can actually invent things at times.

Tax incentives could be helpful.

[tobyhill]

If the US falls into another recession because of oil, get ready for Rats gaining Senate seats by maybe 4 and Hildabeast in '08. There is a lot of positive news in the economy right now but I believe it's unsustainable for more than another 6-9 months if oil prices stay above $50. Consumers only care that it's costing them 40% more to fill their tanks while looking at $2.35-$2.70 a gallon. Prices are something that people actually see in person where other issues are only reported on. It's called "pocketbook issues".

[Physicist]

Even though we do not owe all the modern inventions and energy sources that we now enjoy to government decrees, a government program did invent the atom bomb, so that shows that the state can actually invent things at times.

Concur. Furthermore, I assert that these expenditures would be Constitutional. Our dependence on oil is no longer just an economic issue, but a national security issue.

[pepsi_junkie]

I've always felt that there should be a simple test for any legislation. No law shall be passed that exceeds in length (in terms of word count) the US Constitution. That document defines the entire structure and powers of the government; how can any other legislation be sufficiently more complex than that to justify being a hundred time longer?

[inquest]

Something doesn't become constitutional simply because someone can claim a national security aspect to it. If that were the case, then there would have been no need to enumerate the federal government's powers.

What would be constituional, if we wanted to reduce dependence on foreign oil, or any other foreign product, is to raise tariffs on those products, and let industry take over from there.